A Difficult Defense of Dog Fighting

Dog fighting is one of the more insipid practices I'd be willing to consider defending from a libertarian perspective. Truth is, I tend to prefer dogs to people. That said, I think madcap Redskins running back Clinton Portis may have gotten it right when he said this of Michael Vick's apparent dog-fighting fetish:

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not," Portis said. "But it's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Portis said dog fighting is a "prevalent" part of life.

Portis, a native of Laurel, Mississippi, added: "I know a lot of back roads that got a dog fight if you want to go see it. But they're not bothering those people because those people are not big names. I'm sure there's some police got some dogs that are fighting them, some judges got dogs and everything else."

How do you argue with Portis, especially from a libertarian perspective? It's tough, if not impossible. Even some Deadspin commenters have picked up on Portis as a libertarian spokesperson on the issue.

I tend to think that people who abuse or kill animals purely for the sake of doing so are wrong in the head. I also abhor anti-human extremists like Tom Lantos, who use people like Vick to grandstand against this sort of practice.

In the end, if animals are property -- and they are -- then their owners should be fit to do with them as they please. As uncomfortable as that sometimes makes me feel.