A friend of mine has a farm and adopts the occasional “free-range” chicken (which just means there is some outside part accessible from the cage). They are so heavily bred that they kept falling over because their breasts were too large, so they wouldn’t move much. This is always what I think about when I read free range. Basically a chicken too fat to move that can look outside an open window.

I think you missed the point.

Your first point is literally why I went vegetarian. I tried getting meat out of sources that I could ethically comply with but gave up after a while. If you live in a city it is practically impossible.

I say vegetarian, because I eat the occasional egg if I personally know the chickens and their living conditions.

“I respect christians who don’t force their views on me”

No, you don’t. You just prefer not to be reminded that you’re living in sin.

Everybody preaching thinks, everyone must adhere to their personal moral beliefs. They don’t.

And we are not advocating veganism by antagonizing people. That just makes YOU feel better about yourself and doesnt help the animals at all. If you actually care about animal well-being you will set your ego aside and try to actually convince the carnivores by being a good example and adapting your arguments.

I always point out that I will not discuss the morals of killing animals because it’s difficult for a lot of people. I will go on the level how our society treats the animals before killing them. Almost noone is arguing about that. And I’ve convinced a lot of people that way to at least drastically reduce their meat consumption. The rest will come later.

Isn’t it about reducing animal suffering in the world in total? It should be. Making everyone be vegan in no time at all is unrealistic. We are reducing global meat consumption by emphatically making people question their choices and not by antagonizing them. They’ll just get defensive and mock us.

I mean, I like to shit on Billionaires as much as anyone, but they don’t really own a Billion dollars like sitting around in their bank accounts. They own it in assets like stocks of companies, real estate, etc. The money they spend are usually loans against these assets which they then pay back by selling some because their values usually increases more than the interest rates.

So I don’t understand how you are envisioning this asset cap and going to social services. Imagine you have stock In a company that’s growing more than a million dollars. Would they be forced to sell the stock to ‘social services’? Who controls these assets then? Or are they forced to sell them? Then the assets just get passed around.

I don’t think a solution is that simple. Maybe it would be better if we regulate the companies more. But for that we need to agree on rules on an international level because otherwise, as it is now already happening, they just switch their HQ to less regulated countries. The EU approaches this with regulations you need to follow if you want to operate in the EU at all. Which makes the corps found subcorps to operate in EU. They evade all regulations as long as we can’t agree on an international standard.

Long story short. It’s not the billionaires money that’s the problem, it’s the power they hold in their assets in multinational corporations that enables them to operate above any laws of one nation.

Even better. All the bottling and filling machine manufacturers could sell expensive upgrade packages for the beverage companies to even be able to work with the new caps. In our case we even had to completely retire two older machines because there are incompatible and buy new ones. Great for the environment for sure.