Given the libertarian position on alligator ownership expressed by myself in a variety of outlets, it will come as no surprise that me and many libertarians are against banning pit bulls. In a recent article on FEE and a follow up blog post, I counter the idea that pit bulls should be banned. Here are a few arguments against pit bull prohibition:
The risk of attack alone does not justify government policy.
Statistics along do not justify government policy.
Pit bull ownership is not a violation of private property; therefore, it is not unethical.
Banning pit bulls harms the welfare of pit bull owners.
Annual deaths as a result of pit bulls are negligible.
People will alternate into different breeds if pit bulls are banned.
If all "bully breeds" are banned, it is possible "designer dogs" will be created that are on the cusp of being illegal.
You do not know what people will alternate into.
After a ban, pit bulls may be abandoned in the street, bringing them closer to unsuspecting people.
Pit bull owners might not turn in their pit bulls to the government, causing bite statistics to be suppressed.
Government pest control programs have a history of failure.
People will be marginally less cautious in areas that were once populated by pit bulls.
Banning pit bulls will deprive youth gangs of a means of asserting their "toughness," leading to gangs alternating into different methods of attaining criminal status, which might increase gang violence.
These are just some arguments against banning pit bulls. If you want to read more into any of these, check out my blog post which I hyperlinked above.
What solutions do libertarian propose? For one, people have the right to kill or repel any dog or animal that encroaches on their property rights, and they have the right to extract compensation from the owner of these animals in the event of some trespass, whether it be an attack or simply crossing into one's property. Additionally, animal insurance premiums will encourage people to own less dangerous dogs. Animal insurance exists under the current system, but in a libertarian legal order, the owner of a dog may be liable for more bad behavior from dogs. Insurance premiums will increase further, and the potential legal liability of owning a dog will increase higher than it already is.
Furthermore, libertarians are for allowing people voluntarily establishing private communities that allow or prohibit dog ownership. In privatizing our pre-existing communities, government property once owned by local governments can now be owned and regulated by private parties. Pit bull haters are free to prohibit pit bulls from their share of what was once public property.
Why is this relevant? Breed bans are always a threat, especially in local governments. Municipalities may sneak in a breed ban when nobody is looking as well. A recent example of an Armstrong County municipality taking anti-pit bull action is Kiski Township's "alligator ban." The ban took a lot more into consideration than just alligators. For instance, it regulated the ownership of pit bulls and other allegedly dangerous breeds.
Having good arguments at your disposal as you defend liberty is essential. When it comes to policies such as these, being able to foresee potential unintended consequences should be the focus. The effects may be immeasurable or unstudied, but that should not stop anyone from sounding the alarm.