I am back to livemint

This is a horrible horrible article. I request Ritwik to tear it apart, otherwise I will be doing it later

(Ok the post continues below)

You know some time back when I was watching Tashan, that unspeakable crime against anything in this world,which is sensible, I had a nagging feeling. There was something disconcertingly familiar. Suddenly I realized, what the  horror reminded me of. Yes you are right, livemint, or to be more precise a sartorial version of livement in that it sought to cover lack of story with wardrobe much in the same way livemint covers lack of content with out of context economic jargon. The above article is latest transgression against intellectual clarity.

To start with is the rather specious assertion that  stray dogs are public property, benefiting those who feed them but nuisance to general public, in other words an example of negative externalities.

First, I doubt that stray dogs are surviving because they are fed by dog loving people (although to be sure people do feed them), but primarily as as scavengers and secondarily as predators of pest (rats etc). This needs substantiation by data, but I am pretty sure that I am correct.
Second, now economics is hardly my strong point, but surely calling stray dogs public property surely borders on misapplication of  concept of property.*

Then comes the brainwave of auctioning of stray dogs to individuals, which is all well and good, but what happens if no one decides to buy the dogs, what is to be done with the remaining of them. And since this is what going to happen eventually (I mean can you really see people buying stray dogs, for God's sake), in other words, we are back where we started.

But the most egregious serious error (and yet most common in libertarian circles) is the assertion that animal rights is an oxymoron, because only humans can have rights because it flows from right to own self.
Excuse me, where does this right to own come from ? Did it exist from beginning of time, when neither sky nor earth existed ? Or was it brought over from Galt's gunch by Ayn Rand ?
The reality, if these libertarians were honest enough to admit, that rights don't exist prior to society. Society came before and takes precedence over individuals, and any rights, whether accorded to human or animals are matter of social conventions **. Now one can say that for him only humans have rights and not the animals, but it is also one social convention among many and not any natural law which in my opinion is nothing but an exercise in sophistry***.

PS: My view regarding stray dogs is to prefer methods which do not involve any killing, but if it is unavoidable, I will prefer elimination of stray dogs over human suffering. In a way outlined in a previous post.

* I am note sure about this. Surely one can argue, if one wishes to, that the community does own stray dogs, but I believe it is hard to make case that stray dogs can be exchanged, or are a part of economic activity, except perhaps in some rare circumstances.

** I believe what I have said is nothing short of sacrilegious in Indian blog-sphere, but as I have said earlier I find talk of natural rights tedious. This is not to say that I dismiss the idea of rights but a) I arrive at human rights from position of consequentialism and b) I don't buy in the idea that freedom is the necessary and sufficient condition for human progress.

*** I believe Ritwik holds view favoring natural rights interpretation. Though I am not convinced with it, still I will like to hear it from him.