Most of us have encountered or been told about an encounter with a vicious dog. A dog which, seemingly for no reason, will suddenly lash out at another animal or a human. Attack with no provocation, or even when (as has happened to several of us) when the human is attempting to help the dog. (It’s common enough to promote a saying, “biting the hand that feeds you.”

An uncontrolled (or uncontrollable) dog which is vicious is often put down. Hopefully and preferably by its owner. Sometimes by the person who is the object of its assault. (That, by the way, is self-defense and not animal abuse.) Sometimes it is an agent of government: an animal control officer or sheriff’s deputy or police officer. (Again such is an act of defense, of protection of others. Not animal abuse or cruelty. No matter what animal rights activists and Woke environists might scream.)

It is not only dogs, though that is perhaps the most common because dogs are so integral a part of typical human society. It is done with other animals, domesticated, feral, and wild. Cats (of all types), for example. Bears, horses, cattle, goats. Even birds sometimes. It is not usually motivated by hatred of the particular animal. But it is often motivated by fear: fear not just in the human but in the animal fearing a human or humans in general. Sometimes, there is abuse of an animal in the backstory. But most rational people do not use past human abuse of an animal to excuse, to justify, taking action against a vicious animal.

Even if not actively vicious at the time? Consider a rattlesnake or a water moccasin. Or even a python? Slithering down the street, not directly threatening or attacking other animals? Or humans? Almost no one will hesitate to kill that beast to protect the innocent against potential harm by that creature.

The rationale is simple, straight-forward. A dog which threatens injury to another human (or even another animal) or which actually does harm a human is generally killed. Quickly. No due process. Why? Because it is seen (rightly) as a threat to human life and safety. Ditto for snakes. For bears. For many other animals.

Most people – even most animal lovers – understand this. (PETA, we submit, is not rational – they value animal life over human life. As do more and more environists. Your run of the mill socialist, communist or Tranzi attaches little or no value to either human or animal life. But evolutionists and regressive Woke enemies of liberty lean to the PETA stance, it seems: human life is a distant second to most (if not all) animal life. At least above the single-cell level.)

We must understand that some humans, sickeningly, are little more than animals. But we still value their lives far above that of any non-human. In scientific terms, they are sentient: they are self-aware beings. In religious terms, they are created in G-d’s image by Him.

Except those concepts are not being taught to the young in these or many other countries: humans are just another animal. We are worthless and able to be literally thrown away until we are actually born (and maybe even past birth) and can be put down when we get to be too old or in too much pain (physical or mental). We are important only in groups and classes: voters, workers, special interest groups, etc. We are incompetent to do anything more than vote for those who will do everything for us and to us. And we are a danger to the earth, to the environment, and to other animals and humans.

So let us turn the tables – flip the coin. Let us argue this two ways.

Why not take the position of the humanist, the pagan or heathen, evolutionist, “scientific” observer? If humans are just another animal, why should not a human who threatens or abuses another human – or even an animal – not be put down as quickly, as calmly, as casually as we would put down a rabid and vicious cat? To protect the group: the mass of “We, the People” who are subject to our elite masters? Why not?

(Please note: this is NOT the position of us here at The Price of Liberty. We are only presenting it as the logical result of this kind of thinking.)

But…

On the other hand, please tell us exactly how any group of people – for whatever reason, whatever claimed justification – abuse and/or kill other humans – individuals or in groups – should be treated differently than a vicious and mad dog or bear or mountain lion? In the cause of protecting other individual humans which might be maltreated, abused, tortured or injured, or killed because of the vicious nature of the group(s) and those in the group, is it not justified that action be taken. Taken to end the threat, first and foremost. Eliminated?

Is not defensive violence to end this threat justified? Even to the point of deadly force: of killing those who have already killed or tried to kill others? And to eliminating the organization, the group, that supports those individuals who actually do the deed? Who pay them, grant them supposed legal power to do these things? Who protect them from just retribution?

Vicious animals seldom harm more than a very few people. Governments? Their victims are often millions of people. Simple arithmetic: no calculus required.

If vicious dogs deserve to die to protect people and other animals from their cruel acts, why do not vicious governments (or any other organization or individual) deserve the same treatment?