Abandoned Dogs Roam Detroit in Packs as Humans Dwindle

[Seth]

No, no, the answer is a Federally Funded program for feral doggies (and kitties, and goldfish, etc). None of this spaying and neutering, they have a right to reproduce. Personally, I feel a terrible burden of guilt for what our species has done to theirs, keeping them in virtual slavery for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Did they ask to be domesticated? Did wiener dogs ask to look like a bratwurst? This is our fault and we need to take responsibility.

Flippancy aside, stating dogs are the problem does seem to deny accountability and responsibility for what is also a really bad plight for the dogs. A government funded eradication effort with strict animal welfare and OH&S guidelines is probably the most humane and practical way to deal with such numbers of feral dogs.

Animal welfare? For fuck's sake they are feral animals, just shoot them. Don't turn a fifty-cent solution into a thousand-dollar problem.

[orpheus]

And if they can't leave?

Why couldn't they leave? There's no fences or walls keeping them in. Worst case they can take shank's ponies. Lotsa people did that during the Great Depressison, and they went all the way to California in search of gainful employment and a better standard of living. After all, it's not all that far to get out of Detroit, where things aren't nearly as bad.

But I suppose if they really don't want to leave perhaps we can hire them as window-dressing for tour buses, kinda like going to Disneyland, except it's called "MarxLand" and the buses are armored and escorted by HMMWVs with .50 cal BMGs on the turret, in case of a feral animal attack. We can charge tourists $20 a head for the tour, or more if they want to hunt feral animals, and use that to pay the extras.

Yes, money is the problem. And a shortage of jobs. ( Which is nationwide, in case you hadn't noticed.) And what money should they use for the expense of moving, if they're living paycheck-to-paycheck?

I'm going to end with those questions. Answer them or not, as you please. I should have listened to myself earlier and never gotten involved in this thread. My friends in Detroit are in precisely the situation I describe. I'm not going to argue with someone who shits on them like you just did.

[laklak]

Enlightened Libertarian self-interest could unleash the power of the Private Sector to efficiently match these animal's needs with a strong market niche for wholesome family-friendly pet population management and combat gun training in Detroit.

Either that or fatten them up for the Korean market. As a Compassionate Libertarian (tm) I'm okay either way.

[pErvinalia]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

[mistermack]

The main problem with Detroit is the lack of proper effective policing. (PEP)
(Wow, I just thought up a whatchacallit.)
If the policing was brought up to standard, which wouldn't cost a fortune, the city would regenerate.
Just because it's lost an industry, that shouldn't automatically mean the place should fall to bits.

There are dozens of cities in the US that don't have a huge car industry. Value for money in Detroit would be fantastic, if it wasn't for the crime. Crime is forcing property values to dwindle. People won't invest in a falling market. Cut out the crime, and the property would stabilise, and start to rise in value. That would bring investment, and with it jobs.

Just a small federal investment in policing would have a huge effect, which would benefit the whole country.
But the US doesn't seem to have the mechanism. It's a faulty system.

[cronus]

Build a wall around it and call it a Hyper-Max then private interests can round up the residents into chain gangs and make some money? Win-win.

[Audley Strange]

The main problem with Detroit is the lack of proper effective policing. (PEP)
(Wow, I just thought up a whatchacallit.)
If the policing was brought up to standard, which wouldn't cost a fortune, the city would regenerate.
Just because it's lost an industry, that shouldn't automatically mean the place should fall to bits.

There are dozens of cities in the US that don't have a huge car industry. Value for money in Detroit would be fantastic, if it wasn't for the crime. Crime is forcing property values to dwindle. People won't invest in a falling market. Cut out the crime, and the property would stabilise, and start to rise in value. That would bring investment, and with it jobs.

Just a small federal investment in policing would have a huge effect, which would benefit the whole country.
But the US doesn't seem to have the mechanism. It's a faulty system.

Sounds like the plot of Robocop. I'd Imagine the Fed would hand over such to a Private company like Omni-consumer products.

[Seth]

And if they can't leave?

Why couldn't they leave? There's no fences or walls keeping them in. Worst case they can take shank's ponies. Lotsa people did that during the Great Depressison, and they went all the way to California in search of gainful employment and a better standard of living. After all, it's not all that far to get out of Detroit, where things aren't nearly as bad.

But I suppose if they really don't want to leave perhaps we can hire them as window-dressing for tour buses, kinda like going to Disneyland, except it's called "MarxLand" and the buses are armored and escorted by HMMWVs with .50 cal BMGs on the turret, in case of a feral animal attack. We can charge tourists $20 a head for the tour, or more if they want to hunt feral animals, and use that to pay the extras.

Yes, money is the problem. And a shortage of jobs. ( Which is nationwide, in case you hadn't noticed.) And what money should they use for the expense of moving, if they're living paycheck-to-paycheck?

It's exactly the same conundrum faced by every person who finds that they have to move to where the jobs are because their present location doesn't provide opportunities for employment, so why should they be treated any differently? Lots of people manage to do it. The real question is why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for them NOT to move to where gainful employment is available? By what right does anyone in any declining community bereft of employment demand that others continue to support them in that community merely because they don't "want" to leave?

The very idea of burdening taxpayers that way is ridiculous and asinine.

If there are no jobs where you live, then you either have to create jobs where you live or you have to move to somewhere there are jobs. The "welfare to work" system encouraged just that by limiting lifetime welfare benefits which motivated people to be industrious and serious about finding work, even if it meant using that money to move somewhere else.

That's what penniless illegal-alien "migrant laborers" do all the time, and they manage to get by following the harvest. Why can't the residents of Detroit do the same thing...and by doing so fill that labor pool with American citizens and thereby encourage illegal aliens to go back to their own countries?

I'm going to end with those questions. Answer them or not, as you please. I should have listened to myself earlier and never gotten involved in this thread. My friends in Detroit are in precisely the situation I describe. I'm not going to argue with someone who shits on them like you just did.

I didn't shit on anybody, I merely stated a truth and an opinion. If you can't make a living where you are, then you perforce must go somewhere you can make a living...and take up some job that will provide that living...even if you don't like the job or feel you are overqualified for it or happen to like the house that you are living in. Life is hard. Get used to it. Why don't you ask your friends why taxpayers should be obliged to maintain them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed rather than encouraging them to go make a better life on their own somewhere else?

[Seth]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

The problem here is that YOU do not understand the concepts that I am talking about, which points to your mental capacities, not mine.

[Warren Dew]

And if they can't leave?

Why couldn't they leave? There's no fences or walls keeping them in. Worst case they can take shank's ponies. Lotsa people did that during the Great Depressison, and they went all the way to California in search of gainful employment and a better standard of living. After all, it's not all that far to get out of Detroit, where things aren't nearly as bad.

But I suppose if they really don't want to leave perhaps we can hire them as window-dressing for tour buses, kinda like going to Disneyland, except it's called "MarxLand" and the buses are armored and escorted by HMMWVs with .50 cal BMGs on the turret, in case of a feral animal attack. We can charge tourists $20 a head for the tour, or more if they want to hunt feral animals, and use that to pay the extras.

Yes, money is the problem. And a shortage of jobs. ( Which is nationwide, in case you hadn't noticed.) And what money should they use for the expense of moving, if they're living paycheck-to-paycheck?

It's exactly the same conundrum faced by every person who finds that they have to move to where the jobs are because their present location doesn't provide opportunities for employment, so why should they be treated any differently? Lots of people manage to do it. The real question is why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for them NOT to move to where gainful employment is available? By what right does anyone in any declining community bereft of employment demand that others continue to support them in that community merely because they don't "want" to leave?

I think Orpheus' friends already have jobs in Detroit and can't find them elsewhere, which is why he seems to be siding with piscator's argument for letting a rich libertarian buy up the city and establish a hunting based economy there. I'm not sure he realizes that's what he's siding with, though.

[piscator]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

Just deal meth in Bozeman or Billings....Alternately, you can shoot someone in Mississippi or Louisiana and live at public expense on a vast working plantation.

[Seth]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

Just deal meth in Bozeman or Billings....Alternately, you can shoot someone in Mississippi or Louisiana and live at public expense on a vast working plantation.

But that's not what I want. I want what I want and I expect YOU to pay to maintain me in the lifestyle and location that I prefer. Pay up, deadbeat.

[piscator]

And if they can't leave?

Why couldn't they leave? There's no fences or walls keeping them in. Worst case they can take shank's ponies. Lotsa people did that during the Great Depressison, and they went all the way to California in search of gainful employment and a better standard of living. After all, it's not all that far to get out of Detroit, where things aren't nearly as bad.

But I suppose if they really don't want to leave perhaps we can hire them as window-dressing for tour buses, kinda like going to Disneyland, except it's called "MarxLand" and the buses are armored and escorted by HMMWVs with .50 cal BMGs on the turret, in case of a feral animal attack. We can charge tourists $20 a head for the tour, or more if they want to hunt feral animals, and use that to pay the extras.

Yes, money is the problem. And a shortage of jobs. ( Which is nationwide, in case you hadn't noticed.) And what money should they use for the expense of moving, if they're living paycheck-to-paycheck?

It's exactly the same conundrum faced by every person who finds that they have to move to where the jobs are because their present location doesn't provide opportunities for employment, so why should they be treated any differently? Lots of people manage to do it. The real question is why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for them NOT to move to where gainful employment is available? By what right does anyone in any declining community bereft of employment demand that others continue to support them in that community merely because they don't "want" to leave?

I think Orpheus' friends already have jobs in Detroit and can't find them elsewhere, which is why he seems to be siding with piscator's argument for letting a rich libertarian buy up the city and establish a hunting based economy there. I'm not sure he realizes that's what he's siding with, though.

Have to admit that the seed of the idea was put forth by Seth in the post previous to the one wherein I proffered the notion of a family urban combat shooting ranch-based Lassie-faire economy to replace Detroit's once mighty manufacturing sector.
Let's face it, there's good money to be made in Detroit as a combat ranch family resort destination while urban landscapes are cheap and feral animals are plentiful, but there'll be much more in licensed apparel and other merchandise, like Beta-mags and flashbangs.

[pErvinalia]

Your problem Orph is that you take what Seth says seriously. Half of it is a pisstake, and the other half is so insane as to not deserve any response at all. Every normal human being understand the concepts you are talking about. Be satisfied in that knowledge.

I'll ask you the same question: Why do you think that the taxpayers are obliged to support jobless persons in the lifestyle and location to which they have become accustomed rather than requiring them to pack up and move somewhere they can become gainfully employed? Are you claiming now that individuals are entitled to live wherever they want at the public's expense, even if there are no jobs to be had? If so, then I want to be supported in the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to, at public expense, on a 50,000 acre ranch in Montana where my nearest neighbors are ten miles away.

The problem here is that YOU do not understand the concepts that I am talking about, which points to your mental capacities, not mine.

The problem is YOU don't understand the actual logistics and realities of packing up your life and moving somewhere else, when you are DESPERATELY POOR. Orph has explained some of them to you, and you don't get it. I could explain more to you, but you will never get it. Waste of time.

[pErvinalia]

Why couldn't they leave? There's no fences or walls keeping them in. Worst case they can take shank's ponies. Lotsa people did that during the Great Depressison, and they went all the way to California in search of gainful employment and a better standard of living. After all, it's not all that far to get out of Detroit, where things aren't nearly as bad.

But I suppose if they really don't want to leave perhaps we can hire them as window-dressing for tour buses, kinda like going to Disneyland, except it's called "MarxLand" and the buses are armored and escorted by HMMWVs with .50 cal BMGs on the turret, in case of a feral animal attack. We can charge tourists $20 a head for the tour, or more if they want to hunt feral animals, and use that to pay the extras.

Yes, money is the problem. And a shortage of jobs. ( Which is nationwide, in case you hadn't noticed.) And what money should they use for the expense of moving, if they're living paycheck-to-paycheck?

It's exactly the same conundrum faced by every person who finds that they have to move to where the jobs are because their present location doesn't provide opportunities for employment, so why should they be treated any differently? Lots of people manage to do it. The real question is why should the taxpayers be forced to pay for them NOT to move to where gainful employment is available? By what right does anyone in any declining community bereft of employment demand that others continue to support them in that community merely because they don't "want" to leave?

I think Orpheus' friends already have jobs in Detroit and can't find them elsewhere, which is why he seems to be siding with piscator's argument for letting a rich libertarian buy up the city and establish a hunting based economy there. I'm not sure he realizes that's what he's siding with, though.

Have to admit that the seed of the idea was put forth by Seth in the post previous to the one wherein I proffered the notion of a family urban combat shooting ranch-based Lassie-faire economy to replace Detroit's once mighty manufacturing sector.
Let's face it, there's good money to be made in Detroit as a combat ranch family resort destination while urban landscapes are cheap and feral animals are plentiful, but there'll be much more in licensed apparel and other merchandise, like Beta-mags and flashbangs.