David French and his fellow peacetime conservatives are at it again, wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth as U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) takes a run at curtailing the immense power of Big Tech.
As French channels Neville Chamberlain, the fact is that unless the tech companies are forcefully confronted, now, in the immediate, our self-governing republic will be over in less than a generation and we will be ruled by a tech oligarchy. […]
If we do not correct our mistakes, our great rights of speech and assembly, offline and online, are in danger. Someone is going to be the final defender of our natural rights as codified in the Constitution. Do we want un-elected global monopolistic corporations—entities that may or may not consider themselves American companies, ruling you by algorithms? Do we want them limiting the flow of information in the online public arena, manipulating it to benefit themselves and their view of the world? Or do we want duly elected leaders of a constitutional republic defending our rights?
In a constitutional republic, all power flows from the people to their various elected officials, not to corporations or private companies. And when monopolies develop, in order to reset to a free-market dynamic, monopolies must be broken up so that competition can benefit the consumer once more.
Breaking them up will merely result in the “Baby Googles” or whatever you want to call them being run by the same people who currently run them. How do you propose to get around this? Share offerings to conservatives only? Do you not think that you are creating a dangerous precedent for liberals to employ this kind of economic interventionism in retaliation in the future?
I’m not sure it would set a president. I have a vague recollection of some sort of anti monopoly action taken against I. T.&T. Decades ago and if that is the case it would certainly be unfair to take action in that case and not in this.
Since when has central planning in one industry not set a precedent (not president) in one industry and not another? As for unfair, unfair to whom?
OK I looked it up. Anti trust action started against I. B. M. and I. T. & T in 1988. Those actions prevented those companies from smothering competition in the telecommunications industry. If such action had not been taken those companies would have had such a lock on the industry that they would have owned google before it was born. Perhaps even, so smothered innovation, as to prevent it ever being thought of. Therefore to fail to take similar action now would be unfair to I T T and I B M to say nothing of those of us who value the ability to speak freely.
Thanks for correcting my spelling errors. If life was a spelling bee, I would have been out a long time ago.
My favoured solution would be something much like that.
1. Expropriation of the FAG firms (Facebook, Apple and Google) without compensation.
2. Summary dismissal of the globalist stooge management. All “golden parachutes” forfeit. Their work e-mails to be forwarded to federal and state law enforcement, to be potentially used in civil and criminal indictments against them.
3. Its replacement with loyal Americans, appointed by President Trump subject to Senate confirmation.
4. The prompt transfer of any and all information in their databases that may lead to the successful conviction of those guilty of federal and state crimes to federal and state law enforcement. (Let’s see who they’ve been covering for.)
5. Resale of the firms’ assets to private non-corporate American persons, with funds raised through the sale to be used to pay down the US national debt. Only American citizens shall be permitted to bid, and any buyer must agree not to re-sell to non-US interests for twenty years.
Isn’t that the sort of thing Jo Stalin did?
When did Stalin put collective farms on the market?
You have a point. So I’m only half right?
Maxime Bernier
@MaximeBernier
George Orwell was born 116 years ago today.
His books 1984 and Animal Farm are required reading if you want to understand today’s crazy politics.
He would probably be appalled at what we have become.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/1143603330805116930
Aaaand here we go again with the myth that Google isn’t a private company running its own services that you are not required to use in any way whatsoever.
They don’t have a monopoly. They’re not even acting in a monopolistic fashion. This notion that you somehow have a First Amendment right to force someone to allow you to use their computer for free is a bizarre and dangerous precedent. And the fact that none of these soi-disant conservatives seem to grasp that it isn’t Google or Facebook that are going to suffer under this new Utopia but rather small conservative voices like SDA (if social media sites are suddenly held liable for user-posted content, how long do you think SDA is going to last?).
The purpose of the anti trust laws is to prevent private companies from acting to reduce or eliminate competition. Are you gonna tell us google / Facebook et all ain’t doin that?
The only way to prevent private companies from acting to reduce or eliminate competition is not allow the state to assist them in doing so with legislation. Left to the free market, they can’t do it. The only true monopolies are those that have convinced the state that they are a “natural monopoly” and need “regulation” that among other things just happens to prevent entry of any and all competitors.
I would love to believe that to be so. Can you point me to some reading that supports your theory. I can’t imagine an explanation sufficiently concise to be presented in this forum.
The Austrian and Chicago schools of economics have a plethora of scholarly work on this. Those two “schools ” of economic thought are preeminent in free market economics and offer the only real alternatives to Keynes and Marx. Note that Elizabeth Warren is on side with many here who wish to apply anti-trust to these companies.
Five minutes googling produced this:
https://promarket.org/antitrust-regulation-chicago-school/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chicago-school-of-economics
https://mises.org/library/antitrust-case-repeal
https://mises.org/wire/elizabeth-warrens-antitrust-crusade-economic-and-civil-liberties-nightmare
My first attempt got caught in Kate’s filters so here goes with just one link:
The Austrian (Mises.org) and Chicago schools of economics have a plethora of scholarly work on this. Those two “schools ” of economic thought are preeminent in free market economics and offer the only real alternatives to Keynes and Marx. Note that Elizabeth Warren is on side with many here who wish to apply anti-trust to these companies.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chicago-school-of-economics
China already has algorithmic entries for their citizens.
Don’t think for a second we won’t, or have already, but it’s just flying under the radar.
Make the progressives play by their own rules.
If you play in the public space then you are subject to the laws of the land that apply to the public.
E.G., if you run a bakery on private premises that is open to the public then the state doesn’t let you decide who you are going to bake a cake for on religious, racial, gender, sexual orientation etc etc grounds.
Likewise the tech companies are open to the public and so don’t get to infringe on constitutional rights cuz of someones political leanings. Break them up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/colorado-baker-back-court-over-second-lgbtq-bias-allegation-n949836
The problem is already solved; by any definition, you tube, Facebook, Twitter, are officially content providers now.
Richard Warman would already have a billion of their dollars if he wanted to. Don’t know why no one has simply sued them yet for what they allow to stay on their web pages. With the veritas videos and all the publicly available internal memos and such, they have no defense against lawfare.
Conservatives don’t want the government to regulate their behaviour. They want the government to regulate the other guys behaviour.
Double standards — twice as good.
The difference between conservatives and progressives is where the line gets drawn for government to step in. Conservatives stand for constitutional rights. Progressives stand for state surveillance & control of all aspects of private life including what you are allowed to think. China’s “social credit system” is progressive.
As for the double standard, everyone who challenges the progressive narrative is a Nazi. Meanwhile the progressives are the ones carrying on like fascists.
“Note that Elizabeth Warren is on side with many here who wish to apply anti-trust to these companies.” John Chittick
Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about the “break them up” strategy right there? I mean seriously, when you find yourself making common cause with communists, don’t you think it is time to give your head a bit of a shake?
Thank you sir. I’ll be a while gnawing on that. I will get back to you if / when I come to an understanding of unrestricted free market. Is such a thing even possible, given the number of talented cheaters we are blessed with.
the writer hit the centre of the bullseye with laser precision.
defenders of freedom and fundamental rights CANNOT EVER ‘wait until a better moment’ bla bla bla to act.
because *the opposition never sleeps*.
nuff said.