[wildmusings]

I realize I've laid out a slippery slope. That's why I was hesitant. The strongest case is for banning organized, large-scale animal cruelty done for depraved enjoyment. But I don't think we should prosecute people because we don't like, for example, that they use electric shock collars to keep their dogs from running off.

I'd summarize my position as: 1) animal interests for their own sake are not a legitimate end of government coercion, and 2) the moral character of the people is a legitimate end, but we should be very hesitant to use coercion for social engineering.

[bufferout]

You're not holding much water to be honest. Pick one: a) animals are incapable of suffering b) we shouldn't care if animals suffer c) we should care and pass laws

[wildmusings]

My argument is the option you're omitting:

d) animals suffer, we should care, but we should not pass laws when their sole purpose is to prevent that suffering.

There is more to a society that what it compels at gunpoint. We can abhor behavior without proscribing it by law.

[bufferout]

What is law if not the ability to arrest controversy?

[wildmusings]

Are you arguing that the solution to all controversy is to pass a law? You are proposing to solve all problems at gunpoint.

What space for different conceptions of the good, for diversity of values and preferences, could exist in such a society?

You must have limiting principles for when we should resort to the remedy of the law. Perhaps yours are different than mine, but I doubt that you have none at all.