Anonymous question

If you are interested for the purpose of figuring out whether you should buy shares in a company that produces accessories for zoophiles in advance, or conversely, whether you should dump these shares, then I have no good news for you: it is impossible to make quantitative forecasts here.

From the position of libertarianism, animals are objects, not subjects of law (the exception, as you correctly noted, is an animal such as a human, simply by virtue of the fact that he invented this very law). Therefore, any actions of an owner with his animal on his own territory, which do not cause direct damage to other people who are not co-owners of the animal or the territory, cannot be subjects of legal proceedings at all. It is another matter that such actions can be given a moral evaluation, and one can attempt, through shaming, to drive someone who treated an animal “wrongly” to the point of suicide, if one has enough talent and persistence.

But an interesting legal case occurred to me, which I would not venture to resolve unequivocally.

A cat owner lives in a certain condominium. According to the charter, the chairman of the condominium is elected in general elections by the members of the condominium, and to be elected, it is not strictly necessary to be a member of the condominium oneself. The cat was included in the ballot, won the election, and is now the chairman of the condominium. Then, the owner of the cat performs a sexual act with it without the latter’s consent and publishes a video. The question is: in this case, should the cat be considered the sole property of its owner, or an official who has been harmed?