Who determines that? If you think you can determine that, how are you different from the CCP or the Russian elite? If you can’t, why do you say the interest of those who attach their feelings to a car, a window or a pig is not as important as those who attach their feelings to a dog?

Many people like their cars just like the way you like your pets. They should be treated equally.

We should. The opposite literally happens on a daily basis.

99％ percent of people can be much richer if we share the 0.1% richest people. This never happened. Besides, do you believe Robin Hood is allowed by law in modern society?

The US used to do that. It didn’t end well for anybody on multiple occasions. There’s a reason why US politics is so focused on civil rights, because the good outweighs the bad on a societal level.

Do you think what China does to Uyghurs, and what Russia does to LGBT is justified? Apparently, they believe the good outweighs the bad, only at the cost of a few people.

Why don’t you rob the richest people and share the money with the poorest? Or just ignore the interests of the minorities? Apparently, the good outweighs the bad based on your calculation.

What about windows? Should we ban that as they are easy for thieves to break?

Whether you have more personal attachment to a car, a pet or anything else is a completely personal thing, everyone should have their choice.

You can replace cars with anything else and it still makes no sense. It’s no one else but the thieves who should take the consequences.

But it still makes no sense to ban it nationwide or worldwide, or to forbid it by law.

It makes no sense to ban the consumption of dogs simply because you are afraid of dog thieves. Do you ban driving a car because some people steal a car?

Nothing in this world is completely beneficial, but you can’t ban everything.

Why can’t we say not all men when it’s not all men? Can I say not all women are as rude as you?