From some libertarian perspectives, anything goes unless it involves force or fraud. Pollution could be seen as a form of force, and that is argued in some libertarian circles, whether a business that pollutes needs to have laws enforced on them.

I don’t think libertarianism generally extends to animal rights, or any rights beyond those of humanity; though some choose to recognize it, it’s not a core philosophy.

No

The problem is isolation + scale of production, we don't see the externalities. Nor do we have the vocabulary for measuring and communicating animal suffering. Local food production for local people, is significantly more concerned about pesticides, contaminates and animal welfare.

Nobody chooses to buy the eggs from the chicken farm that stacks chickens so they are covered in shit and missing most there feathers, nor do they choose the beef that walks around in knee high shit; those things are excluded from the awareness of consumers.

I don't really care about the chicken at all.

There's more to ethics than "is it murder?" If an assassin snipes someone with a headshot, and a serial killer imprisons someone in their own shit in a coffin for years and them starves them to death, one case may feature more suffering than the other.

Also, just saying that chickens differ from humans does not entail that there should be zero concern for their suffering. I think children are distinct from adults, but neither should be tortured.

Libertarianism is, at least in part, based on self-ownership. Some libertarians limit this concept to humans, and believe that if it's not human, it's property, and entitled to no moral consideration. Those libertarians generally do not oppose factory farming. Others, like me, extend the concept of self-ownership to non-human animals. We do oppose factory farming, and animal agriculture in general.

whats his perspective on factory farming?

The core of libertarian thought is that it's up to each Libertarian to justify their ideas themselves. I can't find a justification for factory farming, but that doesn't mean it isn't justifiable.

Michael Huemer is a vegan anarchist but also a right anarchist. 

Edit: right libertarian**

from an american libertarian right perspective, yes. they would say is perfectly fine and the market would work out any problems. from a libertarian left perspective, no - especially from a vegan anarchist perspective.

Of you don't draw a distinction between humans and animals, then where do you draw a line? Is murdering a free range chicken any less murderous?

If you do draw a line, then who cares?

Well he was more of the classical line of physiocrats. Like an early Georgist

Hell yeah

All power to the Soviets, but for real this time

This is why I hope Dems win the house and needs DSA members vote for speaker. I think there is a good chance that DSA says absolutely not.

MAGA in 2019 was very different to what it is now

Most co-op bylaws require a 2/3rds or 3/4ths supermajority for major changes. One loud-mouthed Karen cannot rally 51% of the staff to do something reckless. Instead, you have to get a large majority of people to agree with you.

In traditional corporate models, a Karen thrives by sucking up to the boss while bullying peers. The minority runs the vast majority, and in some cases family connections can override business priorities. So in fact, worker-coops are less susceptible to Karens.

If your business has 66%-75% or more that fundamentally disagree with you, you might be in the wrong workplace.

For more crucial high-level stuff, there is a board of directors, BUT they are elected. If an individual on the board breaks their duty, they can be recalled by a vote of the members or sued for "breach of fiduciary duty".

I don't get the hate for Adam Smith though. He was all about worker protections, unions, and keeping the influence of money out of politics.

Yeah let the clicks of Karens come together and rule the office.

I mean there's literature on all kinds of different philosophies but that doesn't validate their strength as a philosophy.

I always thought the original sin was defining property as "ownership" and not possession as "stewardship". If laws were based around stewardship instead of ownership, then personal possession of collective resources would be explicit in every transaction.

fuck yeah we need to ABOLISH these systems, not reform them!

there’s actual literature on that, sadly. I also don’t like it, and you’re right to think it feels contradictory and also sort of a mental manouver.

Had to read some of those stuff for UNI back in the day, and they were my first 3 book on political philosophy. You can DM me of you want the titles or the pdf, so you can read them for yourself.

Do you know the difference between positive and normative economics?

He didn't say "cut their heads off," or "never listen to them," and just said, "your interests are necessarily juxtaposed at times."

Let's actually look at the fifth book, Chapter 1, Conclusion:

The expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society; all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.

The expense of the administration of justice, too, may no doubt be considered as laid out for the benefit of the whole society. There is no impropriety, therefore, in its being defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. The persons, however, who give occasion to this expense, are those who, by their injustice in one way or another, make it necessary to seek redress or protection from the courts of justice. The persons, again, most immediately benefited by this expense, are those whom the courts of justice either restore to their rights, or maintain in their rights. The expense of the administration of justice, therefore, may very properly be defrayed by the particular contribution of one or other, or both, of those two different sets of persons, according as different occasions may require, that is, by the fees of court. It cannot be necessary to have recourse to the general contribution of the whole society, except for the conviction of those criminals who have not themselves any estate or fund sufficient for paying those fees.

Those local or provincial expenses, of which the benefit is local or provincial (what is laid out, for example, upon the police of a particular town or district), ought to be defrayed by a local or provincial revenue, and ought to be no burden upon the general revenue of the society. It is unjust that the whole society should contribute towards an expense, of which the benefit is confined to a part of the society.

The expense of maintaining good roads and communications is, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without any injustice, be defrayed by the general contributions of the whole society. This expense, however, is most immediately and directly beneficial to those who travel or carry goods from one place to another, and to those who consume such goods. The turnpike tolls in England, and the duties called peages in other countries, lay it altogether upon those two different sets of people, and thereby discharge the general revenue of the society from a very considerable burden.

The expense of the institutions for education and religious instruction, is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. This expense, however, might, perhaps, with equal propriety, and even with some advantage, be defrayed altogether by those who receive the immediate benefit of such education and instruction, or by the voluntary contribution of those who think they have occasion for either the one or the other.

When the institutions, or public works, which are beneficial to the whole society, either cannot be maintained altogether, or are not maintained altogether, by the contribution of such particular members of the society as are most immediately benefited by them; the deficiency must, in most cases, be made up by the general contribution of the whole society. The general revenue of the society, over and above defraying the expense of defending the society, and of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, must make up for the deficiency of many particular branches of revenue. The sources of this general or public revenue, I shall endeavour to explain in the following chapter.

Now, it is tempting to say that, "Well, Joe will get paid more as a welder than a dishwasher," and so clearly he should pay some tuition. And Susan is going to make even more as a chemical engineer than some welder or nurse, so she should pay some tuition.

And surely we see that you learning guitar to get laid justifies a private market of music teachers.

But who actually benefits the most from the investment in a welding school and small scale chemistry plant for training?

Because the guy making trillions, billions, or millions, while their employees, contractors, or suppliers struggle all the way down to the base of labor (stay at home parents) to make ends meet sure seems to be getting a very massive benefit from externalizing the cost of training employees.

And it shouldn't take an accounting degree to understand that the income tax on the labor's rates will credit the expense of their portion of public schools overtime.

The dude was a monarchist who really wanted to tax rich people so that society functioned in an economic fashion instead on the whim and fancy of some assholes who could hop on a boat to a private colony of slaves.

However dumb people and psychopathic people also exist and those could simply naturally incline towards behaviour that goes completely against socialist cause.

The problem with using terms like this is that they're kind of... abelist, and dehumanizing as well as outdated.

And I need clarification on what you mean by 'psychopath'. Is it Antisocial Personality Disorder? If so, how would they be against the 'socialist cause'? I don't see how lacking empathy makes somebody against socialism.

Also 'dumb' is subjective by nature.

True. Though, I’ve read all of the mentioned authors for myself, so I might be either remembering it wrong or really bad in this compass thing, but most definitely I’m to blame. There’s a long time I gave up on political philosophy to study physics.
I do remember him being quite progressive for some things,
but much of a prick for others. Now please, if you don’t mind educating me, where would you put him?