Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick would be the first to tell you that not all publicity is good publicity, as several legal and personal embarrassments the past few years have tarnished his image. None come close, however, to the latest revelation that Vick may have raised fighting dogs. If there are definitive criteria to be called a "good" or "nice" guy, I'm not sure what all would be in it. But it's safe to say that raising dogs for the purposes of tearing each other apart is an automatic disqualification. Whereas other athletes may get caught for gun or drug possession, or for getting into brawls in nightclubs, what Vick is accused of is more than just a "mistake." It's hard to root for a guy who can be so cruel to animals.

 

If the allegations are true, however, Vick could also face felony charges, and this could run him out of the National Football League. But should Vick go to jail for this? Should there be a law against dog fighting?

 

As Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis puts it: "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property. It's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

 

That is hardly different from saying any of these things:

 

"I don't know if she had an abortion or not, but it's her womb. It's her body. If that's what she wants to do, do it."

 

"I don't know if she uses drugs or not, but it's her money. It's her brain. If that's what she wants to do, do it."

 

"I don't know if he spanks his kids or not, but they're his kids. It's his family. If that's what he thinks is best for them, who are we to interfere?"

 

"I don't know if he wears a seatbelt or not, but it's his car. It's his life. If he wants to remain unbuckled, let him."

 

"I don't know if they're making porn videos or not, but it's their house. It's their bodies. If what they produce offends us, we don't have to watch."

 

"I don't know if she lets the patrons smoke or not, but it's her property. It's her restaurant. If she wants to allow smokers, non-smokers can go somewhere else."

 

"I don't know if he's racist or not, but it's his business. It's his company. If he wants to discriminate, it's his loss."

 

"I don't know if he wants to kill himself or not, but it's his life. It's his body. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

 

For each statement, strenuous objections can be made. It will be said that freedom must have limits, that we are all inter-connected, that one person's destructive behavior harms not only that person but others as well, etc. And indeed, some of these activities are inherently harmful, and some others are harmful when taken to extremes. But left out of these objections is that The State is no more competent to judge right from wrong, or set appropriate limits, than are individuals. More importantly, the State's use of threats and violence to enforce laws adds an entirely new layer of harm to the activity that didn't previously exist. This can come from additional legal fees, such as an employer being forced to prove he's innocent of racism. In other cases criminality increases the risks, the costs, and the rewards associated with the activity. This attracts gangsters.

 

It's true that anyone with even a modestly carnivorous diet is on shaky ground criticizing how other people treat animals, particularly if the animals we eat are raised in inhumane conditions. But dogfighting and cockfighting are unique forms of animal abuse, in that inflicting suffering on an animal is the entire point, and not just an unfortunate means to an end. One would have to lack any sort of sympathy or empathy for the torn and bleeding animals, and no owner of even a champion dog can be said to "love" it, otherwise he wouldn't put the poor thing into the pit.

 

But dogs and other animals fall into vague moral categories. We know that animals can suffer, but we also know we use them for our own purposes and pleasure. Indeed, there is probably a symbiotic relationship between human and dog, cat, horse, and a few other animals: we evolved and prospered in part because we used them, but they also were preserved and multiplied mainly because we valued them and grew to appreciate them more than other animals.

 

But is the exalted status of the dog a moral requriement, or merely a cultural preference? In the end, is a dog something other than, or more than, somebody's property? The truth may be ugly, but it is hard to rationally dispute Portis's assertion. In the end, the dogs were Vick's property.

 

But this only underscores that the ban on dogfighting, which exists with varying penalties in every state, has nothing to do with "reason" or "property rights." Indeed, while some laws, such as the prohibitions of murder and theft, can be rationally justified based on abstract theories of rights, in the end laws don't exist because they're "rational." Instead,. laws are based on sentiments felt in the gut and moved by the heart, not reasoned by the mind. There are laws against murder because people hate to see other people's lives cut short. There are laws against theft because people feel sorry for the victims. Empathy is a strong force that drives legislation. The prohibition on dogfighting isn't based on any coherent theory of animal rights or property rights, but rather on the desire of the community to protect dogs from needless suffering. It's a matter of compassion, not abstract reasoning.

 

But because laws are based on feelings rather than rational thought, it hardly matters in the end whether the law is actually effective in ending the evil. If someone came forth with pragmatic arguments, complete with statistical charts and graphs, proving that dogfighting's very illegality is what makes it thrive, and that repealing anti-dogfighting laws will actually reduce the number of dogfights and the number of suffering dogs, the argument will fall on deaf ears. That's because the law's seal of disapproval will be removed, and people will wonder what kind of society would actually permit dogfighting.. They would cling to the common-sense but false belief that legalization of a bad thing like dogfighting will result in its increase.

 

But if dogfighting was legalized, would you go to a fight? Would you bet on one? Are you refraining today only because it is illegal, or because you can't stomach the thought? Would dogfighting fans "come out of the closet," so to speak, expecting their neighbors and coworkers to respect their hobby?

 

Of course not. Dogfighting would remain taboo. The overwhelming majority are repulsed by the concept.

 

It is more likely that those already predisposed against dogfighting will not be tempted in the slightest to get involved. It is more likely there is big money in dogfights today only because it is criminal. After all, no one would risk prison raising dogs that fought for $10 bets, but some people would accept the risk - and rationalize the cruelty and grotesqueness - if they stand to gain tens of thousands of dollars per match. If dogfighting was decriminalized, the risk, and therefore the rewards, would disappear. It would be less likely to attract big-money investors. The worst-case scenario of decriminalization would hardly be any worse than the status quo.

 

Fortunately, there are so few people interested in dogfights that, legal or not, it is unlikely to gain any kind social acceptance. Even those who believe government is too large and meddlesome would not be inclined to place dogfighting legalization on the agenda; there are dozens of more pressing issues. What dogfighting laws illustrate, however, is that laws are not made because of rational theories of human rights, property rights, or even animal rights, but on the feelings and sentiments of the people. Libertarians should realize this when they argue for decriminalization of prohibited activities. The rational argument, based on facts and reason, isn't the only argument. People act on what they feel is right rather than what is logically true.

This is only natural; nobody acts on reason alone. But it also means that the art of persuasion is more than just appealing to minds. Facts and logic are useful in making an argument, but it is also necessary to appeal to emotions, sentiments, and feelings.