Libertarian conundrum of the day
Does the no-harm principle extend to animals (right, what about food?*) when the intent is to make them suffer or (as argued when Michael Vick was convicted) are they just property according to the law? (We’re talking about, erm, animal-torture porn.) Is this a case where we’ve painted ourselves into a corner, forced to defend something horrible for freedom’s sake?

You find farmers who are unsentimental about animals: many ‘puppy mills’ (factory-style breeding of pet dogs) are here in Pennsylvania and I understand Amish own many of them.

*Vegetarians: turn against abortion and we’ll talk.

Labels: libertarianism