Archive for the ‘#liberty’ Tag

Quit Poking the Bars   Leave a comment

If I were to synopsize the libertarian point of view into one sentence it would be “Leave the other guy alone unless he’s interfering with your life in a substantive way.”

Yeah, simple, right?

Apparently not because in 21st century America only about 10 percent of the population seems able to grasp the concept of “it does me no harm if it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg.”

Don’t misunderstand me here. Most libertarians will debate almost any topic from dawn to dusk. We’ll stick to our principles and refuse to change our opinion because the vast majority of us became libertarians because we believe in principles. That we’ve thought out the logical conclusions of our principles means something to us and we hope reasonable debate will introduce progressives and conservatives to a less authoritarian way of structuring society.

Unfortunately, almost all progressives and a majority of conservatives cannot grasp the concept of “leave the other guy alone.” In fact, it tends to render them apoplectic when we suggest they don’t need to control the other guy.

For a whole host of topics, Americans are currently locked in a deadly unyielding battle for the soul of our society. We’re willing to tear the country asunder to “win” the ideological war. We’re no longer listening to one another, but we flail away like apes flinging dung at the bars of our cages, determined that we’ll at least out-screech those we don’t agree with.

There are a lot of people I disagree with and a lot of topics I have strong feelings about. Going from a macro view to a more granular view — let’s just look at how this works. This article is not about theology. It’s about human interaction and I’m using theology and morality as examples.

I absolutely believe God exists and spoke to us through the Bible. I absolutely believe God is the source of all things good and that when He says in His Book we shouldn’t hurt ourselves in specific ways, we should listen. We human beings, with our finite lives, are just not smarter than the Creator of the Universe. That works out to my absolute belief that God’s moral guidance is right and any moral stance that disagrees with God is wrong. Mine, yours, the guy down the street — if we’re not agreeing with God, we’re morally wrong.

Ooo, see how bossy I am! I want to control everyone and force them to live their lives the way I want them to.

No, I don’t.

And — here’s something you’ll find in the Bible — neither does God. He created Mankind with free will and let Adam and Eve make their own choices. He even provided them the means to make those choices via a tree He planted in Eden and told them not to touch because if they did, it would fundamentally change their relationship with Him. The tree wasn’t magical. The change came about because of their actions. God warned them of the consequences of choosing to disobey Him, then He let them make their own decisions and face those consequences.

Why did He? God wanted Adam and Eve to obey Him voluntarily. He showed that by providing Mankind with the means to reverse the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, but He doesn’t force us to take Him up on the deal. He permits us the dignity of making our own choices and receiving the consequences of our decisions.

Now we move from the example back to the point of the article.

My moral stance is absolute — for me — and it includes the libertarian guideline of ‘leave the other guy alone” and let him/her live in dignity with the consequences of his own moral decisions. Sure, I talk to people, I debate with them about the advantages of following God’s plans, and I pray that God will put other people in their lives who will say the same things. And, no, you can’t talk me out of what I believe because I have worked my way through faith from presuppositional analysis to reasonable conclusion and I’m not changing my mind about what I am 99 percent certain is true. If that insults, enrages or otherwise frustrates you that’s your problem. I hope you come to believe what I believe voluntarily. I won’t force you. However, I will resist any coercion or force meant to change my mind or silence me about what I believe, and yes, there is a lot of societal pressure these days to convert to secularism or at least be silent on the topic.

Moral coercion goes both (or all) ways. Some people would like to control alcohol, cannabis or meat consumption. Others would like to control who/what we can have sex with, who we can enter into a marriage contract with, or how many children we’re allowed to have or whether we must send them to public school or can homeschool them, and whether we can introduce them to our nutty personal philosophies. There are those who feel zealous about drinking mega-sized sodas, smoking cigarettes, wearing baggy pants, gun ownership, who we vote for, where we go to church or if we go at all, whether we drive a “gas-guzzling” SUV, an “eco-friendly” electric hybrid or take public transportation, whether we live in an apartment, a suburban house or a tiny home,… and the list goes on and on. Moral coercion is all around us. It doesn’t matter on which side of the moral divide you’re on — all sides are guilty of trying to force or coerce the other guy to do life whichever way they think is best.

It’s led us to a stage of societal development where we resemble apes flinging crap at the walls of our cages and we wonder why. I recognize the real issue is that there are cages at all, but a good start would be for the morality nannies to stop poking each other through the bars. Stop trying to force the other guy to do it your way. Give him the dignity of his choices and maybe he’ll give you the dignity of yours.

_______________________________________________________________

Lela Markham is a multi-genre author and blogger, born-again Christian, libertarian Alaskan with diverse interests.

Posted January 15, 2020 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

Snippets of Wisdom   Leave a comment

This thought didn’t come from me, but from a college-aged young man we know. He suggested the presidential candidates for 2020 need a “Bastiat for Beginners” course.

It started out with him asking me to remind him of my slogan for 2016 —

Crooks on my left, clowns on my right.

I’m not voting for either of you.

Toby explained he was really too young and immature to understand what I meant when I said that three years ago, but when he argued with me, I suggested he go read some intelligent discourse and come back to me before the next presidential election.

Image result for bastiat parasitic and voracious intermediary meme

He remembers being angry that I didn’t listen to him. After all, I haven’t been in a classroom for over a decade and times change and what do I know anyway? Of course, I didn’t stop learning, not when I graduated high school, not when I got my BA, and not when I got my Masters. I just gave myself permission to study books I’d never had time to study before — books that teachers find subversive because they suggest government employers are not all that good for society. Let us remember who most teachers work for.

I thought the conversation was over because I certainly don’t feel like I have more than an hour to waste on a stubborn 17-year-old, but my son (also 17 at the time) emailed Toby a pdf of Frederic Bastiat’s That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen and Toby took it from there.

Now, at 20, he thinks Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump and the other myriad candidates should be forced to sit down and study Frederic Bastiat’s writings before they continue forward in this race. He also suggested Lysander Spooner, Randolph Bourne, Milton Friedman and John Locke, but I doubt they’re ready for the full monty treatment. For the record, Toby found those authors all on his own because Kiernan opened a door of reason for him. The kid plans to tackle Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty this winter. Toby’s a Political Science major so he could actually do something with this besides just chatter on the Internet.

I don’t think we’re going to get the 30-odd people who are running for US President for 2020 to get together in a classroom and study Bastiat and even if they did – well, yeah, they would refuse to absorb most of it (Elizabeth Warren, Donald Trump and Joe Biden are all about on the same intellectual level and not amenable to learning). They already know everything they need to know to force me to live the life they believe I should live and want to live because they know better than me what my life should look like. Most of them don’t want to reason out what is good for society. They’re all about the feelings and virtue signalling. They don’t really care if their programs enslave people.

But hey, that doesn’t mean I can share some of the wisdom of Bastiat with willing readers. As you read the snippets, think about how that applies to 2020 and the US Presidency. I think if you do it right, you’ll never quite see the nanny state in the same way you did before.

Snippets of Wisdom

  1. “The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.”
  2. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference: the one takes account only of the visible effect; the other takes account of both the effects which are seen and those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”
  3. “[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; …that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate… Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? … But is it possible? … Whence does [the State] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?”
  4. “It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.”
  5. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
  6. “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
  7. “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
  8. “It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person…The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.”
  9. “Leave people alone. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty.”
  10. “Misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe.”
  11. “The real cost of the State is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that don’t exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The State has looted us just as surely as a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.”
  12. “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”
  13. “You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”
  14. “The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its purpose is to protect persons and property…. If you exceed this proper limit—If you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, or artistic—you will then be lost in uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it on you.”

Just read each one at a time and pause and think about the implications in our present society and the election of 2020.

What If There Was A Government Shutdown & Only Congress Noticed?   Leave a comment

I know this has some people really upset – the government shut down – but it didn’t really. Just some functions shut down and, if you look around, you don’t see any mass violence, roads are still functioning, the border patrol is still getting blamed for the choices migrant parents make, the military is still doing what it does. Yeah, if I need to call some federal offices today, they will be closed. Big whoop! Fact is, if the federal government were replaced by a myriad of private companies providing the same services, they wouldn’t shut down because they would lose money and might even go out of business if they showed their customers that they weren’t needed.

The last government shutdown that happened in the summer, Brad and I went and hiked what used to be our favorite hiking trail, before it was shut down by the federal government and we were required to get a permit to hike it. We enjoyed our day in and day out without fear of National Park Service employees harassing us. We hardly noticed there was a shutdown.

Yay, Shutdown! Too bad the employees will get paid for sitting on their hind ends for however long.

Posted December 26, 2018 by aurorawatcherak in Anarchy

Tagged with , , ,

Founders on Property   Leave a comment

A friend commented the other day that Americans have become so self-centered, not willing to share from their “excess” and the Founders would be so ashamed. I quoted the highlighted section of this James Madison document, but she didn’t believe me. “That’s one of those made up quotes,” she said. I found it for her, but here you go … all you people who have swallowed the socialist statist propaganda. Not only is the quote not made up, but the larger context gives weight to the singular quotes. Property, to the Founders (to THE Founder who mostly wrote the Constitution) was something inherent in an individual and that property included not just houses and lands, but rights.

 

29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266–68

This term (Property) in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.


The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962–77 (vols. 1–10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977–(vols. 11–).

Regulators Are Trying to Derail the Success of our Private Railroads | Ian Adams   Leave a comment

Found on FEE

By virtually any measure, America’s freight rail system is one of the best in the world. In fact, rail transports a full 40 percent of freight moved in the United States. But rogue federal regulators may change that.

Image result for image of a freight train

Since 1981, when a bipartisan congressional effort largely deregulated the nation’s freight rail providers, Americans have enjoyed a 45 percent decrease in rates for transport by freight train.

That means nearly twice as much freight can be moved on the rails today, compared to 35 years ago, for roughly the same cost. New rules under review by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board, however, largely would undo those striking gains.

The Rail Industry Doesn’t Need Micro Conductors

The Surface Transportation Board is considering implementing a “reciprocal switching arrangement” rule, better known as “forced access,” which would require railroads to grant competitors a right to use their rails.For decades, railroads have negotiated terms among themselves for interchanging traffic.

Supporters of the rule maintain the measure would improve competition. However, they seek to do so by reinstating the kind of pre-1981 regulatory regime that brought the railroads to the brink of financial ruin.

Before passage of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, railroads were unable to account for the true costs of their services because of regulations that restricted their rates and practices. Similarly, forced access would prescribe how railroads interact, independent of the public’s interest in competition.

The case for forced access is built on two seemingly reasonable, but ultimately incorrect assumptions.

The first incorrect assumption is that rail lines are public property and should be treated the same as roads; they aren’t, and they shouldn’t be. In fact, for the most part rail lines are owned by private firms.

The second misconception is that railroads can’t already coordinate the use of each other’s rail lines on their own, even though they do it all the time.

In fact, for decades, railroads have negotiated terms among themselves for interchanging traffic. The Surface Transportation Board is asked to intervene only when one railroad complains that another is charging rates that are excessive.

Why Fix What Ain’t Broken?

This system has worked well. The public benefits from rails being held in private hands, as that arrangement has provided incentives for private capital to be invested in maintaining those lines.Forced Access would lead to less private railroad investment, and consumers would feel the pain.

Compared to other major industries, railroads invest one of the highest percentages of their own revenues to maintain and add capacity to their systems, according to the Federal Railroad Administration. This has saved taxpayers billions.

Compelling railroads to open their routes to other operators under terms dictated by the government would render railroads’ billions in private investment less valuable. Over time, they would have less and less reason to invest, and consumers would feel the pain.

Of course, proposals for forced-access regulations would be unthinkable were the railroads in the state they found themselves in before the Staggers Rail Act’s reforms, in the wake of eight large railroads filing for bankruptcy.

As is often the case, memories of past foibles fade quickly. The cost of forgetting the past, and the great benefits that liberalization has brought, would be a return to worse service, expensive taxpayer subsidies, and, perhaps, outright nationalization of our railroads.

That would be a move in the wrong direction.

Source: Regulators Are Trying to Derail the Success of our Private Railroads | Ian Adams

Posted October 7, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in economics

Tagged with , , , ,

Adopt A Highway   Leave a comment

Image result for image of a gravel roadMy friend Mila sent this to me via email and it was intriguing enough that I researched it. Mila lives here in Alaska, but she was born in the Ukraine. Her husband Alex is from Russia. They escaped the USSR about two years before perastroika, so they know a thing or two about risking all for the chance at freedom. Maybe someday they will let me interview them.

Anyway … back to the subject at hand

 

The Moscow Times:

“Smugglers have transformed the gravel track in the Smolensk region in order to help their heavy goods vehicles traveling on the route, said Alexander Laznenko from the Smolensk region border agency. The criminal groups have widened and raised the road and added additional turning points, he said.

The road, which connects Moscow to the Belarussian capital of Minsk, is known to be used by smugglers wishing to avoid official customs posts and is now under official surveillance.

A convoy of trucks was recently stopped on the road carrying 175 tons of sanctioned Polish fruit worth 13 million rubles ($200,000). The produce was subsequently destroyed, TASS reported.

Local border guards, customs and police officers have checked over 73,000 vehicles entering Russia from Belarus this year, Laznenko said, claiming that the number of heavy goods vehicles crossing the border from Belarus has increased dramatically in the last year, he said.”

 

So, as I work on the 3rd book in Transformation Project (yeah, that’s right, I’m working on it even though the 2nd book is more than a month from launch), I’ve been asking myself these questions, trying to see beyond my marginally statist myopia.

Who will build the roads if the government doesn’t?

Apparently criminals will, if they need to and it benefits their own interests. And, catch what they’re bringing in — fruit.

Image result for image of truckload of fruitOh, the horrors of black marketing! Someone might get addicted to bananas.

The smugglers adopted a gravel road from Moscow to Minsk, raised it, widened it and added turning points. The secret project increased traffic and prompted a government takeover, complete with customs abuses.

So, let’s just take a pause and think about this. A company builds roads. By the way, the government does not build roads. The government gives money to companies to build roads. So the government goes away (or at least stops being able to fund roads) and the company does what?

Well, the statist answer is that they would go bankrupt because no roads would be built. The capitalist solution would be that they either build the road themselves and recoup the cost through tolls or they contract with the people who need to road to get their goods to market and build the road on their behalf.

See! No government needed! Just enlightened self-interest and a dump truck and grader.

Dear Regressives: Crackdown Is Not an Effective Way to Deal with Dissent | T.J. Brown   Leave a comment

While I know private companies have every right to do this, I still propose that they shouldn’t.

Source: Dear Regressives: Crackdown Is Not an Effective Way to Deal with Dissent | T.J. Brown

Image result for image of free speechOver the last several years, the far cultural authoritarian left – termed today as the regressive left – has been launching a militaristic online campaign against free speech; one that aims to make the web into an ideological safe space. And, as with any war, whether physical or digital, the victim count is growing more and more each day.

Today’s headline casualty? Leslie Jones.

What Actually Happened

As any competent social media user under the age of 79 knows, you never feed the trolls.Like most Millennials, I spent about 60% of the day yesterday scrolling through Twitter. Eventually, I saw it: Leslie Jones’ nudes as the number one trending topic in the United States.

Immediately, a single word popped into my head as I contemplated the motivations behind this act: Milo. For those who don’t know, in the month of July, conservative media personality Milo Yiannopoulos became the first person ever to be permanently banned from Twitter. Not “Your account is gone and you have to start all over” banned, but “You as an individual can never use this platform again” banned.

Milo has had run-ins with the Twitter police before, most notably when he had his verification badge removed after jokingly pretending to be a Buzzfeed employee. In this most recent event, Milo exchanged a single tweet with Leslie Jones as she was battling a wave of trolls online after her Ghostbusters release. Granted, his tweet was provoking and catty, per Milo’s reputation, but it was in compliance with Twitter’s terms of service.

But because Leslie continued feeding the trolls (never feed the trolls), she attracted even more harassment which caused even more of a scene for the website. This embarassed Twitter, and led to their need to make an example of this situation to prove to the world they were on the side of safe space advocates. So they banned Milo.

Deleted tweets & temporary suspensions are common, but never banning. It shocked Milo’s 300,000+ fans, including yours truly, that he was indefinitely evicted from his most domineering platform. It also made Milo into a martyr for the libertarian/conservative/classical liberal sphere of the internet. And as with any martyr, some supporters will seek revenge against their martyr’s antagonist. This would unfortunately become to be Leslie Jones.

The Regressive Left’s Role in Endangering Leslie

Remember, the outcome via free markets will always yield better results than that of central planning and authoritarian regulation.Through perhaps her own volition, Leslie made herself into a target for harassment the second she showed emotional vulnerability to her trolls. I don’t intend to victim-blame her for the disgusting, hateful criticism regarding her movie or the recent photo leak, which, again, is indefensible. But as any competent social media user under the age of 79 knows, you never feed the trolls.

That’s why the block button exists. You would think a professional comedian would be more aware of this fact than anyone, but I digress. Whether she bared conscious responsibility or not, her approach to criticism was directly correlated to the harassment she received. And in a way, it’s kind of ironic.

With her calls for rescue and intervention by Twitter, I theorize that the company and her SJW allies actually made her online experience less safe than it otherwise would have been had Twitter simply left its internal marketplace free to take its spontaneous course and allow the situation to resolve itself. Remember, the outcome via free markets will always yield better results than that of central planning and authoritarian regulation.

The regressive left claims to be interested in making the internet a safe space for minorities, but in the end, through their obsession to control speech and interaction, they made the situation ten times worse than before. They’re facilitating the rise of political conflict online. And this isn’t just limited to Milo Yiannopoulos: several additional examples have surfaced both before and after this particular event.

In 2009, Mozilla’s CEO was forced to resign after pressure surfaced from the left to oust him for his political opinions on gay marriage. Granted the CEO is no less culturally authoritarian, seeing as he contributed money to promoting a government act to ban gay marriage in California, but that’s not to say the left is any more libertarian.

Free Speech

In the end, it was a major declaration against free speech. Particularly free right-wing speech. Not the legislative writing backed by the constitution, mind you, but rather the philosophical principle backed by morals and ethics.

Backtrack to 2015, when the war on gamers was at its peak, known as #GamerGate. In the midst of trying to free this entertainment genre of problematic content, the left managed to get video games removed from shelves or outright banned. Notable examples were Dead or Alive xtreme 3 and Grand Theft Auto 5. Oh, and just so progressives can know how much of an influence they had, the misogynistic Islamic theocratic patriarchs of Saudi Arabia agree with you about combatting problematic sexual indecency. Hence their banning of Rise of the Tomb Raider.

Fast forward to “current year” to witness the onslaught of censorship in full swing, which many have had the unfortunate pleasure of experiencing first hand. Multiple individual libertarian-leaning personalities and commentators have been targeted. Reputable names like Lauren Southern, Blaire White, Liberty Memes, Milo Yiannopolus, Gregory Alan Elliott, and not-so-famous names like Peyton Smith,Anarchyball, and so many other individual or collective outlets for what has been deemed “politically incorrect” commentary have been directly influenced by these censorships.

Ignoring the examples of actual physical assault, doxing threats and social media harassment (arguably sometimes more severe than that of Leslie Jones), these people have been on the receiving end of attempted censorship efforts from far-left camps like AntiFa, Intersectional Feminism, BlackLivesMatter, and so on.

This war on ideas is about to boil over.

The Free Market Has Had Enough

With fierce attack comes fierce resistance. A new generation of online pioneers are seeking to remove the monopoly on ideology the left currently holds in mainstream academia, entertainment, news, and social media. Prepared to launch swift defensive strategies when confronted with the threat of censorship. But since many of these organizations are in the ideological pocket of Big Leftism, dissenters can’t rely on conventional methods of fair internal resolutions.

As a result, we’re seeing the creation of voluntary cyber militias, prepared to defend their fellow free speech advocates during this crusade of so-called social justice. News outlets like Breitbart, Drudge, Rubin Report, and Rebel Media, as well as a frontline division of non-media individual parties, are all protecting each other, raising awareness of unfair censorship and redirecting the pressure onto the companies and their bias representatives.

While I know private companies have every right to do this, I still propose that they shouldn’t.But with black market vigilante defense comes more impassioned and negligent defensive actions – including the latest shameful example of Leslie Jones’ private photos being hacked and leaked as a humiliation attack.

None of us who support the free exchange of ideas should support this kind of silencing. But at the same time, it’s time for companies and the greater authoritarian left to realize their ideological Ecclesiocracy is not making the internet a safer place. And by failing to provide users a trustworthy avenue for impartial enforcement of regulations, they have created cells of betrayed consumers who are determined to seek justice through primarily cooperative, though unfortunately sometimes disgraceful, tactics.

Get Authoritarianism out of Social Media

If you’re really interested in making the internet a safer place for users, and a more respectful place of discourse, consider cultural liberty. We’ve seen the effects that ideological authoritarians have had on our governmental system, fighting to arbitrarily enforce what they think is right. Ask yourself, do you honestly want to see that system duplicated in one of the most populated, innovative, and arguably anarchic industries of the Information Age?

While I know private companies have every right to do this, I still propose that they shouldn’t; not only because I’m a genuine free speech absolutist, but also because I care about the safety and comfort of all individuals – even those like Leslie Jones who would be just fine with silencing me.

Posted August 26, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Liberty

Tagged with , ,

Inside My Mind

Words from my brain

Happiness Between Tails by da-AL

Tales + Tail Wagging + Book Love + Writing + Art + Food + Dance + Travel + Joy

Fairfax and Glew

Vigilante Justice

The Wolf's Den

Overthink Everything

SaltandNovels

Sprinkling wonder into writing

Remmington Reads

A book enthusiast bringing you all things bookish

MiddleMe

Becoming Unstuck

Magical BookLush

A New Dimension to Explore!! Love for books and series is all we need. Life can be lonely without books. All I love is books, series, and talking about serious causes like bodyshaming. Do join me if you love to live your life to the fullest

Jacquie Biggar-USA Today Best-selling author

Read. Write. Love. 💕💕💕

Not Very Deep Thoughts

Short Fiction and Other Things

Ediciones Promonet

Libros e eBooks educativos y de ficción

the dying fish

Book info, ordering, about me etc. in upper right

%d bloggers like this: