It's not better because it infuses government interference into something that already works.
You mean it infuses government interference into a system that's already controlled, regulated and enforced by the government?
And "already works" by allowing the populations to be lopsided by 5,6, even 10:1, to be nearly decimated in one place and so high in another than gardens need 8 foot high electric fences?
I don't understand the argument at all, Sarge, on that we agree.
How can a system that is created, maintained, regulated and enforced by the government be "infused" with government interference when that same government chooses to simply change the system?
How can the argument be made that the current system "works" when the conditions are undeniably
as I describe?
That's not a system that "works" just because it allows a hunter to shoot any deer he wants at any moment, unless that single criteria is the definition of a working system.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.