This pattern has become increasingly, plainly, and painfully obvious in the case of free speech and its regulation (read: censoring) by virtually monopolistic social media platforms, and most people cover their ears and yell, "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't hear you!" when you point out that there will soon (if not already) be no functional difference between the government dictating what you can and can't say and our status quo. Hope that Tree has room for all of us up there...
In tandem with this, they had big tech push a "No political party advertisements" rule on several large social media sites. Which you would think would be good, right? But certain parties just funneled all their ads through mainstream media sites, who suddenly had hundreds of millions to spend on advertising articles solely about how one political candidate was good and another was bad. No other topics but this.
This is ultimately a counter-terrorism issue, for people who are denied the soap box and cannot get relief via the ballot box or the jury box are left with only the ammo box to seek redress. I am surprised that Nasim Aghdam's attack on YouTube HQ is thus far the only such attempt.
Lot's of people on what was once the alt-right have been saying this for as long as I've been paying attention, which is about 6 years. But of course they are evil NAZIS, so they have been disregarded by those on the conservative part of the liberal establishment. Of course reacting to being hated and discriminated against because you are White is pretty inexcusable, and not nearly as important as the right for sex workers to have advocates, because that is what made Western Civilization great.
You are correct. The dissident right was the first to sound the alarm. For the most part mainstream conservativism continues to be oblivious to the issue.
Because private property is and must be a creation of the state. The very notion makes no sense without a structure within which groups of people that are not immediate family live and deal with one another. Companies in particular are creations of the state, it's the state and state power that incorporates them, that gives them a corporeal body.
It's weird how people on the right seem to think that rights and property come from nowhere, that they somehow just are, or that they are granted by God. I never saw God's signature on a corporate charter.
Ridiculous assertion. Private property existed long before the state. Corporations are fictitious creations of the state. Companies, that is private businesses, existed long before the state and corporate law was devised. Life, liberty and property are inalienable rights, meaning we all posess them by virtue of being free independent agents. The state is simply a gang that monopolizes force in order to deprive us of what we were born with.
At what point does a corporation restricting speech become so intertwined with government that courts treat it as an extension subject to the 1st Amendment?
'the gov't controls the coporations and the corps control you." very fascinating article. I applaud your direct style, though it's challenging for me to find examples of direct govt control over coroprations in my country north of you, but it is similar. Closest example i can think of is back in 2006-07/08....PM harper selling our water right from under us, no consult....he was sneaky in alot of ways. But good in many ways too. But yeah, hes an example of the govt to corp to consumer relat'n. Beginning of confederation est that resources belonged to the provinces, so there are some great policies in that regard and some shitty or non existent ones as well. I dont know where we would be without the last best Prime Minister we had in this respect which was Chretien who made the 90s a time of transformation and prosperity (though we didnt see it at the time maybe). And where would we be without our neighbours south of us who often jump before we do so we can assess the damage? lol From my educational, professional and farm/nat resources experience in general, i find its a little less linear than gov't to corp to consumer in terms of control up here, maybe a bit more of the corp, gov't , consumer/voter ....but its more of a circle in my mind...sry for the longwindedness, just want to explore how we can protect and support one another during these times. God bless our continent. God bless America.
There is nothing private about a corporation. The bottom line is that a corporation cannot own anything. This is by definition: the words "own" and "private" refer to the relationship between property and individual people. Likewise a government cannot own anything.
Consider how a government "owns" something. A group of people declare that they will shoot anyone who tries to use or take the "owned" property. A corporation, in the same way, has police to shoot others who might want to use the "owned" property.
Basics of Ownership
Here are the basics from Walter Block: "As an initial philosophical matter, a corporation cannot meaningfully exist as an entity distinct from individual human beings. This notion violates the principles of methodological individualism that underlie libertarian theory and Austrian economics. Just as groups, committees, and clubs cannot themselves act, neither can corporations.” "That is, there is not and there cannot be any such thing as a corporation separate and apart from human beings."
Having no existence, a corporation cannot own anything. The so-called ownership is enforced by the police. A group of persons cannot act as a group, only as individuals. This is human action.
There are two ways a person may obtain private property:
1. acquire from another person or 2. homesteading, mixing labor with nature.
Persons have a basic right to access to nature, beginning with taking their first breath when they are born.
A person may divest property in two ways: 1. transfer ownership to another person or 2. let it go back to nature.
Persons cannot obtain property by homesteading if they do not have access to nature. A government is a group of people who have decided to restrict access to nature. Thus government “ownership” does not mean ownership. It means access to part of nature is blocked by force. Consider how the US government can "own" national forests for example.
Government is not merely a group of people who steal, taking property. One of the goals of government is to prevent people from owning property in the first place, thus they are partially powered by envy. Government force is used to prevent persons from accessing nature.
In other words, a government is a direct assault on private property by preventing the access to nature necessary to obtain property.
A corporation is simply a subset of government: a corporation cannot own anything but relies on government to prevent access to a subset of nature. A government/corporate partnership does not protect private property but does the opposite. It locks up nature by force, preventing
persons from obtaining property by homestead.
Here are the basics from Block: "As an initial philosophical matter, a corporation cannot meaningfully exist as an entity distinct from individual human beings. This notion violates the principles of methodological individualism that underlie libertarian theory and Austrian economics. Just as groups, committees, and clubs cannot themselves act, neither can corporations. That is, there is not and there cannot be any such thing as a corporation separate and apart from human beings."
Having no existence, (let alone a human existence) a corporation cannot own anything. The so-called ownership is enforced by the police.
Now consider an openly communist government. Everything belongs to "the people". But "the people" cannot own anything, since, again, ideas can't own anything: only individual people can own something. The government's main function is to prevent private ownership of everything. This differs only in degree from any government or corporation. All prevent private ownership and are in essence communist.
I don't understand why this is a surprise as an abstract 'freedom of speech' qua speech is incoherent nonsense. All societies must regulate speech because all societies have at their root a transcendental vision of the good. Speaking against that vision of the good is anti-social by definition.
Of course speech is controlled, why wouldn't it be?
Did you even read the article? He discussed the traditional limits on speech, why they exist, and how what is happening online is a different beast altogether.
Traditional limits on speech include blasphemy and lese-majesty. Now that Progress! is our religion, scientists and judges our new robed clerisy, after used having used 'free speech' to overthrow the White Christ, the new priests are again drawing the lines.
This is normal. This is what we get for going along with 'liberation' and 'enlightenment'; its never 'no gods no masters' but 'meet the new boss, worse than the old boss'.
What is your policy regarding re-posting, with full attribution, you articles on my personal blog as well as elsewhere? I enjoy your attention to detail and perspective and wish to pass it on to others.
Well-presented dilemma.
Our form of government is only adequate for a JUST and MORAL population.
If only our founders had warned--Oh...
This pattern has become increasingly, plainly, and painfully obvious in the case of free speech and its regulation (read: censoring) by virtually monopolistic social media platforms, and most people cover their ears and yell, "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! I can't hear you!" when you point out that there will soon (if not already) be no functional difference between the government dictating what you can and can't say and our status quo. Hope that Tree has room for all of us up there...
The tree is large and has many branches, and there are more than enough vultures to go around. Welcome, comrade!
In tandem with this, they had big tech push a "No political party advertisements" rule on several large social media sites. Which you would think would be good, right? But certain parties just funneled all their ads through mainstream media sites, who suddenly had hundreds of millions to spend on advertising articles solely about how one political candidate was good and another was bad. No other topics but this.
This is ultimately a counter-terrorism issue, for people who are denied the soap box and cannot get relief via the ballot box or the jury box are left with only the ammo box to seek redress. I am surprised that Nasim Aghdam's attack on YouTube HQ is thus far the only such attempt.
Social media today is just The New York Times of the 30's.. Same propaganda and lies..
Lot's of people on what was once the alt-right have been saying this for as long as I've been paying attention, which is about 6 years. But of course they are evil NAZIS, so they have been disregarded by those on the conservative part of the liberal establishment. Of course reacting to being hated and discriminated against because you are White is pretty inexcusable, and not nearly as important as the right for sex workers to have advocates, because that is what made Western Civilization great.
You are correct. The dissident right was the first to sound the alarm. For the most part mainstream conservativism continues to be oblivious to the issue.
Being oblivious with a Red R behind ones name pays well in the current year.
Because private property is and must be a creation of the state. The very notion makes no sense without a structure within which groups of people that are not immediate family live and deal with one another. Companies in particular are creations of the state, it's the state and state power that incorporates them, that gives them a corporeal body.
It's weird how people on the right seem to think that rights and property come from nowhere, that they somehow just are, or that they are granted by God. I never saw God's signature on a corporate charter.
Ridiculous assertion. Private property existed long before the state. Corporations are fictitious creations of the state. Companies, that is private businesses, existed long before the state and corporate law was devised. Life, liberty and property are inalienable rights, meaning we all posess them by virtue of being free independent agents. The state is simply a gang that monopolizes force in order to deprive us of what we were born with.
At what point does a corporation restricting speech become so intertwined with government that courts treat it as an extension subject to the 1st Amendment?
'the gov't controls the coporations and the corps control you." very fascinating article. I applaud your direct style, though it's challenging for me to find examples of direct govt control over coroprations in my country north of you, but it is similar. Closest example i can think of is back in 2006-07/08....PM harper selling our water right from under us, no consult....he was sneaky in alot of ways. But good in many ways too. But yeah, hes an example of the govt to corp to consumer relat'n. Beginning of confederation est that resources belonged to the provinces, so there are some great policies in that regard and some shitty or non existent ones as well. I dont know where we would be without the last best Prime Minister we had in this respect which was Chretien who made the 90s a time of transformation and prosperity (though we didnt see it at the time maybe). And where would we be without our neighbours south of us who often jump before we do so we can assess the damage? lol From my educational, professional and farm/nat resources experience in general, i find its a little less linear than gov't to corp to consumer in terms of control up here, maybe a bit more of the corp, gov't , consumer/voter ....but its more of a circle in my mind...sry for the longwindedness, just want to explore how we can protect and support one another during these times. God bless our continent. God bless America.
the republic will only stand as long as its people are righteous.
There is nothing private about a corporation. The bottom line is that a corporation cannot own anything. This is by definition: the words "own" and "private" refer to the relationship between property and individual people. Likewise a government cannot own anything.
Consider how a government "owns" something. A group of people declare that they will shoot anyone who tries to use or take the "owned" property. A corporation, in the same way, has police to shoot others who might want to use the "owned" property.
Basics of Ownership
Here are the basics from Walter Block: "As an initial philosophical matter, a corporation cannot meaningfully exist as an entity distinct from individual human beings. This notion violates the principles of methodological individualism that underlie libertarian theory and Austrian economics. Just as groups, committees, and clubs cannot themselves act, neither can corporations.” "That is, there is not and there cannot be any such thing as a corporation separate and apart from human beings."
Having no existence, a corporation cannot own anything. The so-called ownership is enforced by the police. A group of persons cannot act as a group, only as individuals. This is human action.
There are two ways a person may obtain private property:
1. acquire from another person or 2. homesteading, mixing labor with nature.
Persons have a basic right to access to nature, beginning with taking their first breath when they are born.
A person may divest property in two ways: 1. transfer ownership to another person or 2. let it go back to nature.
Persons cannot obtain property by homesteading if they do not have access to nature. A government is a group of people who have decided to restrict access to nature. Thus government “ownership” does not mean ownership. It means access to part of nature is blocked by force. Consider how the US government can "own" national forests for example.
Government is not merely a group of people who steal, taking property. One of the goals of government is to prevent people from owning property in the first place, thus they are partially powered by envy. Government force is used to prevent persons from accessing nature.
In other words, a government is a direct assault on private property by preventing the access to nature necessary to obtain property.
A corporation is simply a subset of government: a corporation cannot own anything but relies on government to prevent access to a subset of nature. A government/corporate partnership does not protect private property but does the opposite. It locks up nature by force, preventing
persons from obtaining property by homestead.
Here are the basics from Block: "As an initial philosophical matter, a corporation cannot meaningfully exist as an entity distinct from individual human beings. This notion violates the principles of methodological individualism that underlie libertarian theory and Austrian economics. Just as groups, committees, and clubs cannot themselves act, neither can corporations. That is, there is not and there cannot be any such thing as a corporation separate and apart from human beings."
Having no existence, (let alone a human existence) a corporation cannot own anything. The so-called ownership is enforced by the police.
Now consider an openly communist government. Everything belongs to "the people". But "the people" cannot own anything, since, again, ideas can't own anything: only individual people can own something. The government's main function is to prevent private ownership of everything. This differs only in degree from any government or corporation. All prevent private ownership and are in essence communist.
3. A person may obtain property by conquering it. https://www.zerothposition.com/2017/03/21/libertarianism-conquest/
No, there is no third way. Conquering is acquiring from another person.
(I assume "conquering it" does not mean conquering the property itself, since this would be homesteading.)
Collective ownership is a spook. Thanks guy.
I don't understand why this is a surprise as an abstract 'freedom of speech' qua speech is incoherent nonsense. All societies must regulate speech because all societies have at their root a transcendental vision of the good. Speaking against that vision of the good is anti-social by definition.
Of course speech is controlled, why wouldn't it be?
Did you even read the article? He discussed the traditional limits on speech, why they exist, and how what is happening online is a different beast altogether.
Traditional limits on speech include blasphemy and lese-majesty. Now that Progress! is our religion, scientists and judges our new robed clerisy, after used having used 'free speech' to overthrow the White Christ, the new priests are again drawing the lines.
This is normal. This is what we get for going along with 'liberation' and 'enlightenment'; its never 'no gods no masters' but 'meet the new boss, worse than the old boss'.
"The special mark of the modern world is not that it is skeptical, but that it is dogmatic without knowing it."
-G.K. Chesterton
What is your policy regarding re-posting, with full attribution, you articles on my personal blog as well as elsewhere? I enjoy your attention to detail and perspective and wish to pass it on to others.
I'll respond to your email on this!
I'm busted.