Categories
ideological culture individual achievement social media

X Marks the Grift?

Elon Musk, X, free speech, censorship, freedom

Most of the calumnies against Elon Musk come from people who are either envious or completely unaware of the basic principles of economics. Or both.

That being said, not everyone “in my camp” admires or defends the South African-American tech magnate. On Sunday, Eric Peters — “the libertarian car guy” — published, on his website, “Xcrement Is Just That (and more).”

“I have written a number of articles critical of Elon Musk’s ‘free speech’ social media grift,” Mr. Peters asserts, “which I say is just that because it isn’t free. . . .” 

Since I pay nothing for X, I was surprised. What?

Peters is “assuming you want more than a few people to know you’ve spoken.” That’s how he put it. “You must pay a recurrent fee for what is styled ‘reach.’ Even then, your ‘reach’ is subject to being limited via completely obscure parameters known only to Elon and his algorithm.”

And the complaint is . . . ?

The Twitterverse prior to Elon’s acquisition of the platform, asserted, with some perspicacity, that “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” The “freedom of reach” part was nothing other than “freedom of the press” — and the technological and business platforms that make up “the press” have never been “free of price.” Someone must pay for getting ideas out there far and wide.

Yet Mr. Peters seems to think that “Free ought to mean not just without cost but open. As in everyone can use it and no one is limited in any way from using it. Xcrement does not work like that.”

Well, the telephone system in days of yore was indeed open to everyone, but that did not mean “free.” And if you wanted to make a long-distance call, you had to pay the phone company.

While old-time telephony isn’t equivalent to modern-day social media, the parallel is close enough to show that this specific case against Elon is without merit.

Still, I wouldn’t call it excrement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

James Mill

Demand creates, and the loss of demand annihilates, supply. When an increased demand arises for any commodity, an increase of supply, if the supply is capable of increase, follows, as a regular effect. If the demand for any commodity altogether ceases, the commodity is no longer produced.

James Mill, Elements of Political Economy, Second Edition, Revised and Corrected (1824), p. 87.
Categories
Today

Custer’s Last

Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the U.S. Constitution, on June 25, 1788.

Other events on the 25th of June include Custer dying at the Battle of Little Bighorn (1876); Igor Stravinsky’s ballet The Firebird debuting (1910), with the composer becoming an instant celebrity; and Civil War veterans arriving at the Great Reunion of 1913 at Gettysburg.

Categories
First Amendment rights initiative, referendum, and recall

Freedom of Organizational Speech

free speech, censorship, Citizens United, press freedom, corporations

Is it okay to speak freely when you’re just one person but wrong when you’re organizationally cooperating with others?

The latter speech is the target of a Center for American Progress “Plan to Beat Citizens United” launched in 2025.

The hope is to stomp our freedom of speech when we speak as members of incorporated entities — unless the corporation is a news media company. Think tanks, trade groups, and others would be prohibited from using funds to engage in election or ballot-issue activity. They would enjoy little scope to discuss issues or legislation “that may be associated with candidates or ballot measure campaigns.”

Sounding the alarm is People United for Privacy, which reports that CAP’s proposal is being promulgated in 15 states. One state, Hawaii, has already enacted a CAP law. It is being challenged in court.

People United for Privacy has successfully challenged a CAP ballot question in Colorado; officials decided that the measure violated a single-subject requirement.

The bumped ballot title: “Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution removing the power of artificial persons to spend money or anything of value to influence the outcome of an election, and, in connection therewith, defining ‘artificial person’ as an entity, including a corporation, whose existence is conferred by Colorado law or that otherwise transacts business . . . in Colorado. . . ?”

The troublemaking phrase “artificial person” simply refers to a legally constituted organization formed by real people with a real right to freedom of speech.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Confucius

Men do not stumble over mountains, but over molehills.

K’ung-fu-tzu (Master Kong), as reported in United States Congress House Committee on Agriculture (1973) Hearings Before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Ninety-second Congress, p. 21.

Categories
Today

A Newly Found Land

John Cabot landed in North America a Newfoundland on June 24, 1497, leading the first European exploration of the region since the Vikings.

In 1535 on this date, the Anabaptist state of Münster was conquered and disbanded.

June 24 birthdays include Henry Ward Beecher, clergyman and reformer (1813; died 1887); Ambrose Bierce, author of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” and The Devil’s Dictionary — his dark, cynical wit earned him the epithet “Bitter Bierce” (1842; disappeared 1914); Richard Timberlake, American free-market economist (1922; died 2020).

Categories
election law Voting

Who & What in LA?

Los Angeles, City Council, voting, elections, non citizen, immigration, democracy

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to place a charter amendment on the November 3 ballot to facilitate giving noncitizens a vote in city elections.

“The measure, introduced by Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, will give immigrants who live, work, pay taxes and raise families in Los Angeles a voice in decisions that directly affect their lives,” The New York Post reported.

Of course, “immigrants” who have become United States citizens already have the vote; this effort is about giving voting rights to immigrants who have not become citizens.

“I believe it’s a simple principle that should guide us: If you live in the city, contribute to the city, raise your family in the city and are impacted by the decisions made in the city, you deserve to have a voice in the city,” Soto-Martínez said.

First, citizen or not, the First Amendment gives everyone a voice. 

Just not necessarily a vote.

Second, these suggested criteria by which non-citizens will gain the vote are simply made-up talking points, not part of the law at all. You don’t have to “work” to be eligible to vote. Nor must one bear children and rear them in LA to qualify. Lastly, no, you don’t have to be a net taxpayer, either.*

“The amendment would modify the city charter so that the council can later adopt an ordinance authorizing eligible noncitizens to vote in municipal contests,” explained Daily49er.com. Who would be “eligible”? Those in the country illegally, as in San Francisco and Oakland?

Worst of all, voters could know the answers to those questions only after they decide to give the city council the power to expand the electorate — to whatever part of LA’s over 680,000 noncitizens it settles upon.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Plus, as standards go, “impacted by the decisions made in the city” is true for anyone who ever drives through Los Angeles. Will license plate readers be used to track down those motorists traveling through to send them mail-in ballots instead of photo enforced speeding tickets?

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

James Mill

There is nothing in the world, where a government is, in any degree, limited and restrained, so useful for getting rid of all limit and restraint, as wars. The power of almost all governments is greater during war than during peace. But in the case of limited governments, it is so, in a very remarkable degree.

James Mill, “Colony,” Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. IV. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black / London: J. Innes, 1832: p. 32.
Categories
Today

Victory to Midsummer

Today is Estonia’s Victory Day, which has been celebrated on June 23 every year since 1934. The date recalls the victory in the 1919 Battle of Vonnu of the Estonian military forces (and Latvian North brigade) and their allies over German forces (Baltische Landeswehr) who sought to re-assert Baltic-German control over the region. The battle was part of the 1918-1920 Estonian War of Independence, where the main adversary of the newly independent Estonia was Communist Russia.

Today, Victory Day also marks the contributions of all Estonians in their fight to regain and retain their independence. Estonian celebration of June 23 is ceremonially tied to the following Midsummer Day celebrations on the 24th.

According to Estonian laws, the state flags are not to be lowered during the night between days.

Categories
property rights

Our Property, Not Their Loot

Asset Forfeiture, police, law, property, corruption

It’s getting harder to hit innocent Coloradans over the head with civil forfeiture laws.

If you live in the Rocky Mountain State and the police want to grab some of your stuff on the basis of a suspicion (or a claimed suspicion) that you have committed a crime, you’re better off today than you would have been a few weeks ago.

Colorado has become the second state of the union to entitle you to a lawyer if police are seizing your property.

The new law also requires “a conviction of the nonowner criminal defendant before the noninnocent owner’s property may be forfeited,” which is a little nonclear but means, if enforced properly, that authorities in the state will not be able to greedily grab your property on grounds of mere suspicion that you or some good buddy of yours has committed a crime.

One needs civil forfeiture laws to disrupt organized crime, say supporters. But Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella points out how much evidence has piled up over the years showing how easily civil forfeiture can be abused. And how frequently it has in fact been abused. Undoubtedly, civil forfeiture laws have “created perverse profit incentives for police departments and lacked due process protections for innocent property owners.”

State by state — or in all states at once, if Congress can help in a way that survives judicial challenges — the incentives must be wiped out.

Due process for innocent people subject to the confiscations must be ensured.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts