March 12, 2010
Dillow, Dogs and Death
Chris Dillow thinks that forcible insurance for those who own dangerous dogs is an idea that represents all that is wrong with New Labour. One of his main complaints is that “The enforced transfer of cash from people of modest incomes to insurance companies represents another way whereby the state is used for the enrichment of capitalists.”
But the obvious reply is: why should the insurance have to be private?
Here’s an idea. Why not set up a scheme of insurance-for-dangerous-dogs provided by the state? The money raised by those who want to pay to keep dangerous dogs could be ear-marked for Sure Start centres, say.
Vulgar libertarians will cry that this represents the growth of the Overbearing State.*But the rest of us can see that dangerous dogs are a problem. It’s not just the growth in the numbers of such dogs (and the failure of past government schemes to control the numbers), and the correlate increased risk of people being harmed by them.
There’s also the very important fact of the fear that such dogs cause. I live in East London. I can’t leave my front door without seeing a pit-breed, a rottweiler or a bull terrier of some sort. It makes me feel uneasy. When my girlfriend and I go to the park for a walk, I don’t think it’s right that she should feel scared by the fact there are many large aggressive dogs roaming unmuzzled and off-lead. And most of them look to my eye (and I worked at a boarding kennel as a kid) like mongrel variations on dangerous dog breeds.
Yes, people have the right to keep pets. But other people surely have a right not to feel threatened by those pets – and in more extreme cases, not to be mauled or eaten by them. We need a solution.
Mr Dillow is ordinarily in favour of structuring incentives so that certain kinds of behaviour are encouraged or discouraged. Yet forcing people to pay extra for the privilege of keeping dangerous dogs looks very sensible on this world-view. If it’s predominantly poorer people who keep dangerous dogs – as a guess, I’d estimate that the middle classes go in for poodles and spaniels more than rotts and staffies – then it’s prima facie reasonable to expect there to be a high elasticity for dog-ownership amongst the poor. Paying for a dangerous dog is a luxury that poorer people can ill afford, so presumably increasing the cost of dangerous dogs will decrease their numbers quite effectively.
Secondly, if the money raised by those who do want to keep dangerous dogs goes not to megacorps, but to the state through its unique insurance mechanism, then the money raised can be redistributed back to the poor. Fewer dangerous dogs, more Sure Start centres.
Of course, what this really depends on is enforcement. Compulsory dangerous dog insurance only has bite – excuse the pun – if there is a signficant incentive to get the insurance, such that people feel they are compelled to do so. That means Po-leece enforcing the rules. But judging by the sheer number of illegally unmuzzled hounds on Victoria Park, and the abject failure of police to enforce the existing rules against dangerous dogs, this looks to me like the real problem with an insurance proposal: it can’t be enforced.
So what should we do? Personally, I’m in favour of killing them. The dogs, not the owners (though sometimes I wonder). You don’t need a bull-terrier cross originally bred for fighting when you can have a labradoodle. If you want a bull-terrier fighting dog, it’s (in most cases; people like Kate B excepted) because you’re a twat who likes to own a threatening dog. In which case fuck you, and fuck your dog. That nice people with nice dogs will lose out is the bullet I’m prepared to bite on this one. Life after all – and if you’ll excuse a final pun – is well known to be a bitch.
–
*Non vulgar libertarians will also be appalled, but are likely to have better arguments. At least, one would hope.
blanco said,
March 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Precisely. Why should some twat’s right to waste the little money they have on a snarling dog because it’s scarier than a knife or gun, override the right of everyone else not to have to see these bitches on the pavement, shitting on our streets, and mauling our kids to death? Openly waving their knives and 9mms around would get them arrested, so they have a rottweiler instead. Fuck them. And fuck the middle class liberals who recoil at the thought of the state banning bad things. That’s the whole point of the state.
blanco said,
March 12, 2010 at 12:16 pm
We banned guns, and knives. Dogs are weapons. Why can’t we ban them too? The same arguments used against banning smoking and guns are now being rolled out against any proposals to ban dogs. “It’s not the dogs that kill people, it’s the way they’re brought up!/their working class owners!/council estate people!” etc etc. I’ve never seen a middle class dog owner squatting down to scoop up their bitch’s poop.
chris said,
March 12, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You’re absolutely right – owning an aggressive-looking dog (even if he is “perfectly harmless really”) is a negative externality which should be priced, and dog licences are far superior to insurance, as the cash raised can, as you say, be recycled to the poor.
There are, though, practical problems – how to enforce it, given that bullying coppers will leave the vicious owners alone and pick upon ordinary dog-owners? And how to distinguish between aggressive dogs and the harmlessish pets of little old ladies.
I share your prejudice – just kill ‘em – but then I think the world should be run for the benefit of cats.
Paul Sagar said,
March 12, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Hmm, I reject the false prophets who spread the propaganda of a dogs OR cats dichotomy. I’m well disposed toward cats, but I’ve always wanted a Labrador.
DogBreed said,
April 17, 2010 at 10:17 pm
While doing a research for a project about dogs I found your blog. Thanks for the info