i had dogs growing up, and i loved them and i believe they had affection towards me. one of them would run away, the other wouldn't. but at some point i just personally felt uncomfortable owning this creature that i loved, because i know that they do not exist in this world to be my property.
I completely agree.
Vincenzo's breakdown only works up to a point, which Cheif touched on, a dog in a rural setting that is allowed to run freely that co-lives with people lives an entirely different existence from one that is owned and lives entirely within its owners confines, which is what i thought this thread is about.
im happy to withdraw the slave analogy since i was not comparing the experience of slavery but rather the mindset of the slave owner.
You're very right that it's all relative. A dog living in an apartment complex lives a different life from one who lives in the country.
I would still argue that the social and psychological benefits for BOTH the human and the dog has it's roots in the historical 'partnership' that goes back a looong way. For some dogs it's more important to be close to humans than to be out in the field running, for instance (not to say that dogs who live inside shouldn't be taken out for a run..).
The LEASH is a tricky subject for me as an animal rights activist - but I truly believe that in most cases it's mostly for the dogs protection against human ignorance instead of a fear of the dog running away.
Dogs generally want to be with the people that they live with, but as soon as you take your dog out for a walk the rules change. Your neighbor might react very differently, especially when they have kids, to your dog coming over to sniff them or play with them. This reaction, in turn, has an effect on the dog who will become scared or excited.
What you'll end up with is the dog, always always always, being blamed for any 'accidents' that can arise from this - so while a LEASH restricts the dog's freedom from being itself, a dog. We as humans understand that it's actually in their benefit. The alternative can be MUCH worse for them, but it's not something we can explain unfortunately.
It's the same with confining them to your living space. It's not out of fear, at least in most cases, that the dog will run away - most dogs, once bonded with you, will stay or come back to you because it's in their nature. It's more out of fear that:
1. There are people out there that might hurt your dog (cars, a$$holes..)
2. Your dog might end up scaring people into doing something bad.
So again, the alternative to confining them might be worse.
You could argue that since dogs don't choose it's morally wrong to confine them, but then wouldn't the same go for kids? Kids don't like being confined either but we don't leave our doors open or teach them to use keys until they're ready for what's out there. It's in their own protection and as loving responsible beings we have to make that choice FOR them.
I get what you're saying but I think it's too simple to say we're holding them captive. Just like it's too simple to say it's "European" to live with a dog.
shyt. Especially cats. Dogs used to at least hunt but in order to avoid more unneccesary animal suffering you can't really get away with that shyt in lots of places. 
Cuz babies can give you ringworm, staph infection, lyme disease, leptospirosis, hookworms, scabies right? 
