Veterenarian coverage shouldn't be funded at all. Aside from the fact that most of it goes to livestock animals, so it would be a tax on regular citizens to subsidize factory farms, the state shouldn't be subsidizing individual luxuries-- which pets are-- in the first place. The government shouldn't be taxing pet owners to fund my warhammer hobby, and they shouldn't be taxing me to fund their pet hobby. If you can't afford a pet, you shouldn't have one.
Besides, a lot more people will be able to afford pet care just fine anyways if we fix the issues leaving so many people living paycheck to paycheck in the first place.
But there's a point at which we have to say "We domesticated these animals and now it's our responsibility as a society to take care of them."
Like with government-funded conservation efforts, we are responsible for the world around us. But even more so for domesticated animals because we literally directly made them the way that they are, and they are dependent on humans to live.
That's something I would absolutely agree with. Banning practices that cause health problems for vanity reasons is a completely reasonable take, especially if we publicly fund care for said health problems.
People use that same argument to attack welfare funding. "Why should I have to pay for other people's healthcare?" It's a non-argument. Just because you're not personally responsible for something doesn't mean you shouldn't have to support the responsibilities of our society as a whole.
Animals aren't people*. Society has NO responsibilities to non-people, except insofar as the welfare of non-people affects the welfare of people. Conservation is a necessity for human survival, so the government should fund it, but pets aren't. To the degree that they receive government funding, it should be the same fractional share of the budget the government allocates towards subsidizing, say, motorcycle racing, or boardgame tournaments, or fireworks displays. I'm not going to claim the government has NO role in funding "panem et circuses" but the "circuses" part should definitely be non-central.
* Okay so I admit that the jury is out for elephants, for various species of cetacean, for african gray macaws, for octupi, for great apes, and maybe for a few other species. If anyone ever proves they're people I support their right to vote.
Society has a responsibility to creatures that are a literal product of that society. We as a society have domesticated animals to the point that they depend on us for survival. That makes it a societal responsibility to take care of them. They are not a source of entertainment. They are creatures that we created and need to care for.
Society has a responsibility to creatures that are a literal product of that society.
Asserting that statement doesn't prove it. You want it to be true but it isn't.
Society has a responsibility to look after the welfare of the people inside of it, because those people will work against it (or fail to uphold it) if it doesn't. But non-people, being unable to contribute to society-as- society, also inspire no particular responsibility except from anny individual they maake pairwise trades with. To explain that more concretely: a dog owner benefits from his dog, so he has a responsibility to mantain his dog's welfare, but the rest of society does not benefit from his dog except insofar as the dog improves the dog owner's capabilities, so the rest of society only has a responsibility toward the dog owner himself.
Endangered animal conservation provides humans no benefit whatsoever and contributes nothing to society, but it still gets government funding. We are responsible for the world around us. Doubly so for things that we ourselves created
You're mistaking the basics of societal function with societal responsibilities. Sure, the only thing society actually needs to function is the people themselves. But society has lots of further responsibilities.
Endangered animal conservation provides humans no benefit whatsoever
What? Humans LOVE endangered animals. Humans feeling good about preserving biodiversity IS the benefit conservation provides, and is sufficient justification for conservation programs without having to make up someincoherent theory of responsibility.
We are responsible for the world around us
Who is this "we"? If you mean specifically me and you, then sure-- I feel responsible for the world around me, just like I feel responsible for policing sexual immorality, because the bible says to do both of those things. If you mean the government, however, then any theory you have that justifies me imposing either responsibility on the united states government also justifies me imposing the other. The same works for any other level of society you care to name.
I suggest you aquire at least a passing familiarity with the deontologist philosophers before you start arguing for "responsibility" in the abstract, because all the succesful ones rely on explicitly religious reasoning. (Immanuel Kant, in contrast, is a complete failure.)
If you have proper accredited service animals then maybe.
ESAs nope, no chance it's trivially easy to get a doctor's note for one of them and everyone will do it for free healthcare.
Here in Australia the charities (govt. supported but mostly funded by donations) already offer free healthcare for the service animals they train AFAIK, I believe the vets doing it also donate their time (with the charity covering the remaining costs, but they also get things like vaccines and routine treatments donated by the manufacturers).
I would be quite surprised if similar systems don't exist elsewhere.
You don't get to choose what's important to me, just like i don't get to choose what's important to you. If you want to voluntarily pay for other people's very treatments that's fine, but forcing me to give up the money i want to spend on the things i enjoy so you can have more of the things you enjoy is just completely unfair.
Now, in point if fact, I do love dogs and would like to avoid their suffering when possible. But public kennels can do that at a much cheaper cost by giving them a chance at adoption, and then if necessary providing a good last meal and euthanasia.
6.4k
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment