OBJECTION!

And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

Yes, because that’s what 99% of the decisions of 99% of people involve. Just because it’s theoretically possible to imagine a situation where these things are done ethically doesn’t mean that’s actually an option that is practically available.

I am not particularly interested in criticizing small farms with relatively ethical practices. My position, from my original comment, is, “But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?”

Is there a hypothetical situation where it’s ethical to kill an innocent person?Suppose some space aliens say they’ll destroy the world with a giant laser if you don’t. That hypothetical does not change the fact that not killing innocent people is still a good general rule in the vast majority of situations you’ll actually encounter in life. To throw out all reservations against murder just because of that hypothetical would be making a rule from the exception.

Likewise, I’m sure you can imagine a hypothetical situation where it’s ethical to consume animal products, but unless that situation is an actual, real thing in your life, that you’ve looked into to verify is the case (which the example of eggs in Germany makes me skeptical of), then what you’re doing is throwing out a generally good rule based on an unrealistic hypothetical, just because following the rule would be inconvenient.

What about wool, honey, milk, eggs.

Again, it’s a matter of whether you’re looking at things in the abstract, or in terms of how things actually work.

Take eggs for example. Eggs aren’t just a byproduct of having chickens around, there are specific breeds that are dedicated to egg-laying. Because only a small number of males are needed for reproduction, most male chicks are put on a conveyor and ground to death. While I can’t claim to be an expert in German laws, I did find that German courts have allowed this practice.

It’s a similar story with milk. Because dairy cows are a different breed, male calves are typically slaughtered at birth. Dairy cows are kept in a constant state of pregnancy, suffer the stress of being separated from their young, and are killed as soon as the milk slows down, typically a quarter of their natural lifespans. Dairy is also similarly bad for the environment as beef, and there are widely available plant-based substitutes like oat milk that taste just as good, if not better.

No matter what animal product we’re talking about, maximization of profits is almost always going to involve cruelty, environmental harm, and selective breeding to the point that any expectations about natural by-products aren’t true. Even with regulations (which can be difficult to enact effectively), there are tradeoffs: limiting cruelty can increase environmental impact (as well as the price). If animal products were appropriately priced based on offsetting the harm they cause, they would be unable to compete against plant-based alternatives.

The way I see it, the tiny fraction of meat that’s produced ethically should go to the tiny fraction of people with dietary restrictions that require meat.

The vast majority of people are not going out to investigate small farms to see if their practices are ethical. They are buying meat from a grocery store, and if they consider it at all, they might pick one with a label slapped on like “organic,” completely meaningless thanks to lobbying.

Practically speaking, it is almost always a choice between torture products and nothing.

Labels like “organic” are essentially meaningless.

But surely in the present state of affairs where that treatment is not the norm, veganism is the only ethical approach, no?

There is definitely an argument for this. When oil markets get a shock, prices shoot up instantly, but then slowly come back down when the shock is over. The only thing stopping companies jacking up prices as high as they like is the possibility of being undercut by the competition, but it takes time for that to happen. In the meantime, oil companies are able to reap the profits of overcharging. By having a state run offering at a set price, it makes it harder for oil companies to do this, and if the price is inflated enough, the state’s gas can still be profitable, just not as profitable as if they charged inflated prices.

There is also the argument that gas is important to the economy, and as it’s generally a fixed expense (and in many areas unavoidable), the burden of higher prices is felt more heavily by the poor.

On the other hand, it it is unprofitable, then it amounts to the state subsidizing gas, which isn’t ideal compared to investing in more sustainable forms of transit (which would have the side effect of reducing demand for gas and lowering the price, in addition to offering more affordable options for travel).

All in all, it’s probably a bad idea to go around criticizing something that lowers gas prices, which risks alienating people. That’s especially true when there’s so much other awful stuff to criticize Trump for. The main place to cut costs is obviously the military.