Does Prop B Violate Our Liberties?

In response to last week’s post about Proposition B, one of our readers asked an interesting question.  It is listed below for anyone who may be interested:

I’m hoping you can help me understand something. I’ve combed through this comparison, and almost everything is already covered by current MO laws. So what is the point of them spending all this money on Prop B??

I “get” that the group behind this Prop has extreme views, wants all pets, hunting, etc, outlawed. But this Prop. doesn’t do that. Why are they putting forth this redundancy and why is it important to fight it?

The only significant difference I can see between current law and Prop B is the “adequate rest between breeding cycles.” Is that what the whole thing is about?

Please, someone, speak plainly to me about this Prop B.

1. Why is this extreme group pushing something that is so close to current MO law… how does it advance their agenda?
2. What exactly is in this Prop (not in the group putting it forward, but in the prop itself) that is offensive to liberty?

Although the laws have definite similarities, Proposition B is much more than simply a duplicate of Missouri’s current laws.

This from Anita Andrews with The Alliance for Truth:

The biggest and most dangerous part of this bill is that it limits breeders to 50 dogs.

On the surface, people knowing nothing of animal agriculture will say, “That’s too many dogs for them to have anyway.   No one should have that many dogs.”

That’s exactly what the animal rights activists are counting on.

In truth, the government has no right to determine the amount of business anyone does.   It doesn’t matter if the business is animals or cars.

This is equalization and communism at its best.   Once the principle of limiting sales is implemented, it can be applied to any industry.

Now, the animal activists may not care too much about the number of cars that are sold, but they do care about abolishing the food industry–all pork, chicken, beef, etc.  Once they have set precedents that the government can and should limit the production of a business, they will simply demand that it be applied to all animals.  After all, why should we say that it is too difficult to have 51 dogs but it’s not too difficult to have 51 cows or 51 chickens?

We have hundreds of thousands of farmers throughout the country that would shut down shop and either move their food operations overseas or join the other 10%+ looking for work because they could not possibly stay in business with the limited number of animals.

If this happens, which of course it will if Prop B passes, only the very rich will be able to afford meat, thus “equalizing” all industries and people, and leaving only the government to obtain the wealth that the rest of us have enjoyed for so many centuries.

The government’s over-regulation of business is a primary factor in the high unemployment rates and the harsh economic times that we are facing.  While the left tries to blame the financial meltdown on the principles of capitalism, any thinking person who has studied American history understands that the unprecedented prosperity that we have enjoyed in this country since its founding would not have been possible had the free markets been strangled as they are today.  Business needs less government intervention, not more.

Every ounce of liberty that we allow to be taken from us will have monumental effects for our future.  Groups like HSUS count on us underestimating the importance of these issues and sitting out the elections.  We must work to restore the liberties that our founders believed in.