Laws must be changed from time to time. If not, we would still have slavery in the United States, for example.
No market is ever totally free.
I do not think allowing inhumane treatment of animals is a good idea. Those commercial hens spend their lives locked in a tiny cage.
True, but in your example there is a victim and an aggressor. That is a case of valid legislation. However there is a HUGE difference between the enslavement of other humans and the treatment of chickens/property. I'm simply saying the only laws we need are "mala en se" laws. Everything else can and should be handled between individuals. I don't think treating animals inhumanely is a good idea either but I think allowing government to stick its nose in other people's business is an even worse idea.
In all honestly, I have half a dozen chickens in a large coop. They free range most of the day nearly every day. I do that because that is what works for me and for my birds. I don't try to impose those conditions on others and simply require others to not try to impose their preferences on me. I'm not in any way, shape, or form saying that I agree with the way commercial chicken operations operate. Simply arguing the point about more laws being needed. If enough people actually gave a **** about how those chickens are treated you wouldn't need new laws, people would simply demand their eggs/chicken come from more humane operations. These demands spur and provide incentive for new operations to take hold or for existing operations to change their ways. All without putting a gun to someone's head and demanding they do things the way that someone else wants them done.
In the case of how we or anyone raises their chickens, they are property. I love and value my chickens and agree that conditions in some commercial chicken operations are deplorable but I also love and value my freedoms and my own property. If I don't like the way someone is raising their chickens the most I can do is refuse to buy their product or associate with them. If enough people agree with me and refuse to economically support them then they will change their ways or they will go out of business. I do not have the right to trespass upon their property and tell them how to raise their property. If they are not doing harm to me directly, I simply have no right to dictate terms of how they handle their property. And I can't give the government the right to do something that I don't have the right to do. The moment we do, we open ourselves up to allowing others to dictate how we use and enjoy our own property. You raise your flock the way you want to raise them and I'll raise my flock the way I want to raise them.
Another example are the stupid laws that try to dictate what color your house can be or what style it can be. If you don't like the color/style I chose, to bad. You aren't making the house payment.
Or Bloomburg trying to dictate what size soda can be sold. That is between me and the vendor.
Or the so-called "Affordable Care Act". If it is such a wonderful idea, why must it be implemented and enforced under threat of violence and incarceration?