Friday, December 7, 2007

Pro-AR blog wants ordinance to require a "vegan option" at every restaurant. No, I'm not kidding.

This gem may very well qualify as the "animal rights idiocy of the year". Here is a post on the pro-AR AnimalBlawg that must be read to be believed. This blogger has come up with a daft idea that could only come out of the bowels of animal rights idiocy: an ordinance that would require restaurants to have at least one vegan option on their menu. Yep, that's right. This blogger wants to use the power of big government to tell restaurants what food options that they have to offer on their menus. I guess it isn't enough for these control freaks to have regulations that tell restaurants what they CAN'T serve, such as the Chicago foie gras ban, but now, in her mind, we must also have regulations that tell restaurants what they MUST serve. I can't help but wonder if such an ordinance would also apply to restaurants that really specialize in serving primarily meat, such as steak houses or barbecue joints, for example. What is the likelihood that vegans would patronize such establishments anyway? I have long made the claim that animal rights isn't about animals so much as it is about control, coercion, and social engineering. This is yet further evidence. I have a better idea. How about we let the power of good, old-fashioned free markets decide what restaurants serve? If vegan food becomes popular in a certain locale, then wouldn't restaurants that serve such fare begin to appear just because market forces would dictate it? Seems so to me, and no big government is required! This is just another example of how some ARAs seek to use the power of the state to control, dictate, and regulate. Why is it that some people think the solution to every "problem" ( in this case a "problem" that is only a product of her own mind! ) is more government, more laws, and more regulations? Sad. Very sad.

5 comments:

Tiger said...

But vegans don't have entitlement issues, and neither does the guy behind AnimalBlawg.

They'd have us believe that anyways...

You don't ask for special food unless you're either allergic to it [or an ingredient in it], severely intolerant of it, or you think the world has to incorporate you because [in your mind] you're "special".

In a free world he's fully within his power to open up his own restaurant with vegan-y meals for the customers.

Others have.

Anonymous said...

I love how she casually mentions the "Chicago foie gras ban" like its no big deal, like they aren't infringing upon other's rights to eat what they choose to eat.

I've my doubts such a ban is even Constitutional.

The simple solution to her problem is: Either stop being a Vegan so your options aren't limited or find places that serve food you are able to eat.

Look I've got a friend who's a Vegan (its a point of contention between us...) and the only reason he goes to Starbucks (a place we both think is overrated) is so he can get his soy"Milk". But its his choice the world nor our economic system is going to accommodate his diet with out a good finical reason.

Rodney

Grizzly Bear said...

Hi Tiger

You're exactly right. You bet it's a sense of entitlement, and an awful arrogant and obnoxious one at that. It also has real sense of faux victimhood to it. It just drips with an attitude of "Oh look at me, I'm a poor vegan. Nobody likes me and my dietary choices so I guess I'll just have to run to mama big government to make those meanies cater to my whims.". I guess I shouldn't be to surprised. Our culture today does everything it can to foster a mentality of entitlement and victimhood. Welcome to the brave new millennium. Sigh.

Bernoldus Niemand said...

I would be happy to support such an ordinance, but with an important ammendment; namely, all vegan and vegetarian eateries should be compelled to offer meat dishes on their menus.

Fair is fair.

Tiger said...

I think you'll have some fun with this.

SuperVegan has a link to PETA's list of top ten prisons that, in PETA's esteemable estimation, has the best veggie fare.

PETA: Not trying very hard to convince us they don't support crime.