“I had a woman threaten to shoot me recently. I was at work, and I was engaged in a discussion with one of my coworkers on the comparative morality of dog fighting versus a government prohibition on the same behavior. My position was that this was a private property issue, and while I find dog fighting eminently reprehensible, and could not stand the thought of my own beloved pet being subjected to such inhumane treatment, the state has no legitimate authority to dictate private use of private property, and that allowing them to do so is to sanction far more violence than would ever be perpetrated by those engaging in the proscribed activity in the first place.” [editor’s note: I’ve been meaning to write a response to Neil’s original column, and now this one, but haven’t had a chance … I disagree with Neil and Rob, and think Michael Vick and his ilk deserve ‘an eye for an eye’ justice … the crux of my disagreement is that I do NOT believe animals are ‘property,’ I do not believe an individual can ‘own’ any sentient being, and I further believe it to be my duty to do my best to prevent injury or harm to any sentient being. Whether or not the state should be involved is another question, but if abusers of children or the elderly should be punished by the state, so should abusers of animals. IMO, all sentient beings should be under the protection of ZAP - MLS] (08/23/09)