In recent years, the idea of granting animals the status of legal subjects, equal to human beings, has gained traction, both socially and legislatively. However, in reality, Law is a human institution, based on reason, reciprocity, symmetry, and the capacity to assume obligations, traits that animals do not possess. These ideas, based on an evolutionary, natural-law point of view, are already part of an ongoing debate about whether animals should be granted legal personhood and rights. However, this article will not focus on the legal and moral rights animals should or shouldn’t have, but rather on how their welfare can be effectively promoted without granting them rights.
Not having rights does not mean ignoring animal welfare. Animals can—and should—be protected, just like environments; effectively and voluntarily, through market mechanisms, incentives, and private norms, within a system of clearly defined property rights. To demonstrate this, we rely on the fundamental principles of economics and the tools of the market.
1. Private Property as the First Guarantee of Animal Protection
Ludwig von Mises explained that private ownership is the foundation of economic calculation and rational action, allowing resources to be used efficiently and responsibly. This principle applies directly to animal welfare. When animals (or the spaces they inhabit) have a clearly identifiable owner, that owner has a personal and economic stake in keeping them healthy, safe, and productive. Just as a farmer cares for his land because it is his livelihood, a rancher has strong incentives to provide good living conditions for his livestock—keeping them healthy and stress-free—because their productivity and value depend on it. The owner of an animal is the first one interested in preventing it from suffering unjustified harm, as severe mistreatment can result in economic losses (sick animals, low product quality, consumer rejection, etc.) or social backlash. To ensure animals are treated with care and responsibility, they must belong to someone who values them as beings whose well-being aligns with their own interests, something made possible by market mechanisms.
2. Consumer Preferences and Reputation
F. A. Hayek wrote extensively about how dispersed knowledge is used in markets through price signals, and how competition leads to constant improvements based on consumer feedback. Consumers have the power to reward or punish business practices by shaping the public reputation of companies. Today, there is clearly high demand toward products and services that guarantee a certain standard of animal welfare. For example, a 2024 survey revealed that 64% of Spanish consumers consider animal welfare to be “very” or “extremely” important when shopping, and 71% say they are more likely to buy a product certified by a third party on animal welfare. This means that millions of people are willing to pay a premium for cruelty-free goods, from free-range eggs to animal-friendly cosmetics. Businesses, competing for the trust of this ethical public, voluntarily adjust their practices to meet their expectations. Competition acts as a driver: companies that treat animals better (and know how to communicate that they do so) gain market share, while those involved in abuse risk losing customers and reputation. In an open market, mistreating animals becomes costly when clients value empathy toward living beings.
3. Private Standards and Voluntary Certification
Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe both defended the role of private law and voluntary institutions in replacing inefficient public regulation. Following the growing demand for better animal treatment, voluntary standards, private codes of conduct, and certification seals have emerged. NGOs, professional associations, and even alliances between producers and retailers have developed codes and independent audits. For instance, the Welfair® seal (created by the IRTA Institute) certifies that farms meet strict criteria for humane treatment, proper feeding, comfort, and veterinary care. Pioneer companies that obtain these certifications stand out in the market and gain consumer trust. These private standards are often more flexible and innovative than government regulations, as they quickly adapt to the latest scientific knowledge in ethology and animal health. Since they are voluntary, they tend to focus on results rather than bureaucratic formalities, and they evolve over time as social expectations change.
4. Civil Initiatives and Voluntary Action
In a free society, animal protection can also arise from civil society initiatives: shelters funded by donations, protection societies that purchase land for wildlife reserves, awareness campaigns that shift public attitudes, and more. We can use a historical example: private zoological societies in the 19th century helped preserve exotic species by creating zoos and parks, many of which later became modern breeding and research centers. Today, private ecological reserves and genetic banks funded with private capital save many species from extinction (Frozen Zoo, Revive & Restore or Fundación Oso de Asturias, for example). All of these efforts do not require granting animals rights or declaring them “persons”; they simply involve recognizing their ecological, scientific, or symbolic value, and channeling voluntary resources to protect them.
The Market vs. the State: Who Does It Better?
Mises, in Bureaucracy, explained that public management cannot allocate resources efficiently because it lacks a profit-and-loss test. Protecting animals—and the environment—is a legitimate goal. But the debate over whether it should be done by the State (via rights) or by markets is often rooted in misleading assumptions. Animal-rights and environmental problems will not be better solved if handed over to the State, because the State operates outside the price system, with no clear ownership and no real incentive to be efficient. Some believe the State can protect animals better because it can spend unlimited amounts of money without needing profit, and thus preserve more than private businesses could. But this assumption fails in practice.
A Thought Experiment: What if Zoos Were Public?
Let’s imagine zoos were public. That way, they wouldn’t need to make a profit and could ensure perfect conditions for animals, even at a loss. However, the opposite tends to happen. Many large-scale environmental disasters have occurred under State control or in poorly defined communal property regimes. Without ownership, there is no responsibility, and without market prices, there is no way to calculate the true cost of environmental damage.
The market, on the other hand, can offer better solutions if property rights over natural resources are properly defined. When a river, forest, or lake has a clear owner, that person or entity has a strong incentive to preserve it and defend it from external harm. Negative externalities, like pollution, are no longer just “market failures,” but become invasions of private property, which can be claimed and compensated for (just like in the case of some privately owned rivers in the UK). Additionally, through voluntary tools like insurance, ecological certifications, or consumer preferences, the market can align economic benefit with environmental care.
The idea that zoos should be public in order to avoid profit motives is flawed. Just because an activity doesn’t aim for profit does not guarantee better management, much less better conditions for animals. In a private zoo, there are real incentives to attract visitors by offering clean facilities, healthy animals, and valuable educational experiences, because its survival depends on meeting public preferences. A public zoo, by contrast, doesn’t operate under price signals nor face financial losses. It may remain inefficient, neglected, and bureaucratic without consequences, since it’s funded with other people’s money. As in any sector, responsibility, efficiency, and improvement come from private ownership, competition, and entrepreneurial risk.
Some might argue that animals in zoos are worse off than in the wild because improving their conditions increases costs and reduces profits. However, this is a false comparison between two completely different contexts. In the wild, animals face predators, disease, hunger, and extreme weather. It’s not a “natural paradise,” but a hostile environment where most die young. In contrast, in a zoo, animals receive constant food, veterinary care, and protection from harm, a clear physical welfare improvement, even if in an artificial setting. We could debate whether changing their environment is morally right, and whether those new conditions are better or worse for them. But at least we now have a baseline that shows both the advantages and disadvantages.
But what happens when a species seems completely useless to us?
What if there’s an animal species that doesn’t seem to provide any clear benefit? How would the market protect it? Would it be morally okay if it disappeared? The truth is that the market is very good at finding value where nobody else sees it. As Ludwig von Mises said, value is not something objective: it comes from what people feel and want. A species might seem useless today, but someone could find it interesting for science, tourism, or even as part of an ecosystem that benefits other things. People have found creative ways to give value to plants, rocks, and animals that were once ignored. If a species really has no use at all and no one cares about it (not even for emotional or symbolic reasons) it might disappear naturally. That’s sad, but not the same as someone trying to destroy it on purpose. The market doesn’t force people to love every species, but it allows individuals, charities, or businesses to protect what they find valuable, even if it’s just out of care or curiosity.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the magazine as a whole. SpeakFreely is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
