Responsible Pet Ownership?

[The Intransigent Faction]

So, city council here is about to consider a by-law regarding keeping pets outdoors in extreme temperatures:

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2014/06/18/mississauga_considers_ban_on_leaving_pets_outdoors _in_extreme_weather.html

There's been a lot of concern expressed about irresponsible owners leaving their dogs in their cars in extremely hot weather.

A lot of municipal laws seem to "legislate common sense", i.e., don't throw your trash everywhere; don't blast loud music all night when your neighbours are trying to sleep, and of course, don't leave pets out in extreme heat, wear a helmet while biking, etc. etc.

In the grand scheme of things it's not a revolutionary issue, but I'm wondering:

As a libertarian socialist, my default position tends to be against trying to change people's behaviour through laws this way, whether municipal or greater. After all, in a properly functioning (as opposed to alienated) community we shouldn't need municipal laws to compel us to behave in certain ways in everyday activity. Such 'rules' might exist in a post-revolutionary society, but would obviously be 'enforced' in different ways.

So, how much can everyday "irresponsible behaviour" like this be affected by a transformation of the socioeconomic order of society? Is it really as tantalizingly simple as one councilor put it ("I hate to have to have these rules, but there’s some damn fools out there.")? Should communists oppose these laws in the same way some oppose the war on drugs, on grounds that they seem to teach people "Don't do X, not because it's better for you and your community not to, but because the government says you can't do X"?

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think it makes sense to oppose this laws specifically. Our position is straightforward in the sense that we advocate the dismantling of the bourgeois state, and it would be rather bizarre to insist on such laws in written propaganda and criticism, and ultra-bizarre to actually try and organize around it.

[Manzil]

In this case, I don't think the issue is primarily one of changing people's behaviour. Just about stopping dogs from essentially being cooked to death.

It's not even about common sense. Some people may, somehow, have avoided the 'you're killing your pet' memo, and be genuinely ignorant of the danger. But there will always be borderline personalities who lack empathy for others, whether human or animal. Ultimately, most animal abuse comes down to this sort of neglectful and selfish attitude which, while we can't prevent it, we can stop from being repeated.

Laws against animal cruelty are a blunt way of identifying these people, and of preventing them from owning pets (usually the only serious consequence, when people are hauled up before magistrates over stuff like this). But they are all we have.

[The Intransigent Faction]

In this case, I don't think the issue is primarily one of changing people's behaviour. Just about stopping dogs from essentially being cooked to death.

It's not even about common sense. Some people may, somehow, have avoided the 'you're killing your pet' memo, and be genuinely ignorant of the danger. But there will always be borderline personalities who lack empathy for others, whether human or animal. Ultimately, most animal abuse comes down to this sort of neglectful and selfish attitude which, while we can't prevent it, we can stop from being repeated.

Laws against animal cruelty are a blunt way of identifying these people, and of preventing them from owning pets (usually the only serious consequence, when people are hauled up before magistrates over stuff like this). But they are all we have.

Yeah, the idea that there's some ignorance of the danger did cross my mind, but it's still "common sense" in the sense that this would mean making those people aware of the danger would resolve the problem, rather than relying on laws. Of course the borderline cases are another story. I think it's wrong to assume absolutes like "they'll always be around", but for the foreseeable future they will be...

Sure, it's not something to "organize around". More generally, though, a sense of reliance on bourgeois government laws to deal with that borderline minority or to 'educate' people in this way could be a problem.

Anyway, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.