In America, we are told that we are free to pursue happiness, just so long as that pursuit doesn’t do harm to anyone or their possessions.
It is this inalienable right to succeed that drives the entire American dream. Without it, the hordes of young socialists would have dragged us down their wayward path decades ago. No, the American people were never designed to fit into that system. Not now. Not ever.
And that’s the beautiful thing about freedom: The line between having it and not having it is absolute. You’re either free or you’re not. That’s it. Default to free.
In many an American city, however, something strange is happening. Americans who all claim to love this liberty are attempting to subvert the freedoms enjoyed by their compatriots. Whether it’s a Mauser or a mink coat, someone is coming for something that you own.
“San Francisco could become the largest U.S. city to ban the sale of fur, a move that would hearten animal lovers but frustrate niche business owners who say they are fed up with city officials dictating what retailers can or can’t sell.
“If the Board of Supervisors approves the ban Tuesday, San Francisco would join two other California cities — West Hollywood and Berkeley — in saying no to a glamour symbol that animal advocates say is built on cruelty and does not reflect the city’s values.
“San Francisco has a strong social conscience, often at a cost to businesses. Its board has banned the sale of menthol cigarettes and other flavored tobacco, which voters will consider in June, and prohibited performances by exotic animals. In 2016, San Francisco approved what was then a groundbreaking paid parental leave law, requiring private employers to offer six weeks of fully paid leave.
“If passed, the fur ban would go into effect Jan. 1 and apply to coats and anything else featuring real fur, including keychains and gloves.”
This isn’t a united sort of move here, San Francisco. It does not reflect well on the togetherness of our nation.
Given the absurdity of the legal maneuver there has been plenty of interest in what could come next in San Francisco. Will the city progress to the point of banning things such as gasoline-fueled cars? Non-craft beers? Beef?
“Skip Pas, chief executive officer of West Coast Leather, said fur items make up only a small portion of his inventory so he won’t be affected much.
“But he’s appalled that 11 people on a board can tell retailers what they can sell, without a vote by the public, and at a time when the city has more pressing issues, such as dirty streets and homelessness.
“‘It’s the people of San Francisco who should say, “Yes, it’s too much,”‘ he said. ‘What’s next? They’re going to say that you can’t have beef and you can’t have pork and duck in Chinatown? I mean, it’s a little too much.'”
Skip’s right, though. It is too much. This is a governmental overstep in the plainest of clothes. Future generations will look back and laugh at the nonsensical nature of the social justice jackboots and their weaponizing of political correctness.
In fact, a great deal of the left’s rhetoric about the fur industry is just plain wrong.
“About half the furs produced in North America now come from farms, so no threat of extinction there. Furs taken from the wild, however, also come from abundant populations. Government-regulated trapping seasons ensure that we use only part of the surpluses produced each year in nature.
“Thanks to excellent national and international regulations, furbearing species that were once depleted in many areas have been restored. Biologists tell us that beavers in Canada are now as abundant as when Europeans first arrived in North America. Coyotes, foxes and raccoons are more abundant than they have ever been. This is a real environmental success story. “
“Of course there are other materials to keep us warm, but the best of them (wool, down, leather) also come from animals. Meanwhile, most synthetic fibers (including fake or ‘faux’ fur) are derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, the extraction and transformation of which entails serious environmental risks.
“In many regions, wildlife populations must be culled annually to maintain healthy and stable populations, to preserve habitat, to protect endangered species (e.g., by culling predators that attack ground-nesting birds or sea turtle eggs), and to safe-guard human health, livestock and property. If furbearer populations must be culled, surely it is more ethical to use these animals than to discard them?”