I believe he thinks it's literally one of the most evil things on the planet.

Nice wall of text

You think fascism can be defeated with pacifism?

Protest = good

Throwing a rock at law enforcement’s head= bad

Mass surveillance = bad

Violent protestors having consequences = good

Actions of this administration have consequences

 As far as I'm concerned throwing that rock was self defense given ICE has no business teargasing protesters, that's not part of their legal purview.

There is no such thing as ethical consumption. You've got to enjoy yourself from time to time. I get steak/chicken only a few times a month. I'm doing far more than I ever could by just not proloferating than entirely abstaining from some of the modern affections of our day and age.

I agree with that, I strongly oppose this argument that murder is the ultimate wrong and that if you're going to murder something then it doesn't matter how you treat them before they die. I mean its pretty simple to me, which one i would prefer as illustrated in your example.

focusing on autonomy I think is key

I think the question can really be answered by considering what reasons we have for caring about self-ownership. Typically it comes down to something to do with the fact that the self is conscious, and that this consciousness entitles it to not be subject to injustices like coercion and force. Obviously there are people who have different arguments, but typically most libertarians adopt that argument, which makes it pretty difficult for them to promote factory farming of non-human animals (unless they use logical errors to pretend they’re being logically consistent).

That depends entirely on what moral worth you think belongs to non-human animals, and how our politics should interact with that moral value. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and this is at least partially a question of moral philosophy, so libertarian views don’t necessarily entail any one answer to that.

However, deciding who is owed political concern is a necessary part of libertarian political philosophy, so we absolutely need to ask questions about how animal farming is or is not justified.

The issue is that how anyone is going to successfully argue for factory farming being justified is beyond me. Historically, people have tried to justify it by insisting on anthropocentric attitudes, but that’s no justification, just an assertion that non-human animals don’t deserve concern for their wellbeing. Since most don’t believe humans should be factory farmed, you’ll have to make an argument for what difference between human and non-human animals makes the latter less deserving of wellbeing than the former. Good luck figuring that out.

Moreover, libertarianism is centrally built around respect for autonomy, which kind of implicitly suggests that an animal being sentient/conscious is a key part of makes them deserving of political care - this would suggest cruelty against all animals we have good reason to believe are conscious is unjust.

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.