Good lord. Alex Jones recently went on Steven Crowder and they had a two man jerk-off condemning libertarian ways and thinking. Before I sound like the corporate press by giving you misinformation, Steven and Alex talked about more than just their problems with libertarians. Either way, it was odd for a few reasons.
The lighting was weird, Alex talks with an odd “ssshhh” ending his words with a gravely lisp, Alex couldn’t look at Steven directly and the depth of thinking here is bad on several levels. Alex has famously claimed he’s a libertarian but I think his involvement in this movement hasn’t gone beyond talking heads.
Steven Crowder also claimed former libertarian ways and his reference in the interview with Jones was “I’ve read Reason Magazine.” I started listening to Crowder before the 2016 elections (2014??) and he did reference being libertarian leaning at the time and only on specific issues. But he never espoused any intrinsic understanding of what being a libertarian would mean and he certainly wasn’t liberty minded in regards to war, the police, or criminal justice reform. I’ve failed to hear him espouse insights into libertarian thought leaders, writers or what type of libertarian philosophy he might be drawn to. I suspect in his mind he was like “I’ve seen clips of Milton Friedman on Donahue” and that was the extent of his understanding… oh, and “they smoke pot.”
In the interview of Jones, both Steven and Alex say they can’t be libertarian because of essentially the “its a private company bro” type arguments from the LP all while big companies censor and discriminate on political basis without repercussions. They are kinda of right, but wildly blind and in the dark as well.
First, stop listening to only the Reason and Cato types if you want an more broad critique and also listen to schooled libertarians like Dave Smith, or anyone at the Mises Institute. I’d even bet you could get a good argument from someone at Reason if you tried. The last “libertarian” Crowder had on his show was Martha Bueno, and she was only invited on because the mostly male “Louder With Crowder” gang was interested in her “OnlyFans” page, not her take on Section 230. The reality is, most people see through this “private company bro” stance because the veil has dropped showing the nakedness of government dictating what companies must do. What did you just say Tyler? Hang with me.
First. Read this tweet.
Now, I really don’t know when or if Alex and Steven get a woody, but I will just assume they do. Regardless, if you dig deep into Murray Rothbard’s The Progressive Era, you’ll see the massive entanglement of big business and government from over a century ago. Yes, it’s not a new thing. In fact, you could argue government overreach and involvement might have been worse.
I also don’t think Crowder or Alex differentiate between Libertarians (small & big L) and have no idea what the new leaderships of the Libertarian Party actually believes and specifically what their stance is on big business recently.
Max Boot and Cato/Reason
What if I told Steven Crowder that “hey there, I can’t be a conservative because I was watching TV and I saw Max Boot say he’s not a fan of Trump and he also was for covid Mandates.” I suspect Crowder would go to work to “change my mind” by giving me facts and arguments about what a “real conservative” thinks. He’d also deduce that I was lazy for taking a stance against conservatism without reading the big thinkers, talking to conservative thought leaders or listening to the most influential ones of the day.
STATE ACTION
The “private company bro” slur is taking a nosedive, and more and more it’s not even applicable to reality as the state is more entwined with business and entangled with how a business conducts itself or how its terms of service are determined. Perhaps the problem is getting this message out to those willing to hear it.
In the following clip, Facebook (META) robot Mark Zuckerberg discusses with Joe Rogan how the government influenced their site during the 2020 election (5:00 mark) and how they reacted by restricting publication on their platform.
Likewise, Alex Berenson was kicked off of Twitter last year and subsequently sued the tech giant. In the following segment with Joe Rogan Alex describes the legal process with Twitter, Section 230, his eventual settlement with the bird app. At the 13:15 mark (cued below) Alex mentions how the government had been pressuring Twitter to remove him, including people inside the White House under the Biden Administration.
Alex lays out his claims with documents on his Substack page showing the government targeted him specifically through Twitter.
Alex settled his case and therefore he didn’t proceed with additional discovery to possibly unearth some more damaging evidence to play out the First Amendment issues and possible “state action” against him via Twitter.
The point here is, if the White House is telling Twitter to ban Alex or the F.B.I. is giving hints to Facebook regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story, then are the companies acting freely and without government influence? LEGALLY, the Courts have dealt with this issue before regarding government entwinement, entanglement or state action through private companies and if whether such involvement violates the 1st Amendment.
1st AMENDMENT
The First Amendment states that “[c]ongress shall make no law” infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. The courts have expanded this to government entities and not just congress, but it should be impossible for a purely private party to violate this Amendment.
According to the Supreme Court in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (1991), "Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints."
The analysis for state action is more complicated and perhaps I will go deeper on it in a later post or podcast. The courts will have to do a proper analysis and with a good case to unravel the 1st A, section 230 and state entanglement quagmire we are now seeing. But the real take away here is that as a libertarian, you have cover both on legal and consistency grounds to dismantle the “private company bro” moniker. At this point, in your arguments, I would even put the burden of proof on the other side to show the government isn’t involved rather than assuming a purely private company.
Libertarians may have lost Alex and Crowder, but I suspect their aversion to many of the other libertarian ideals was more significant than the issues raised above.
For more on this subject, check out the podcast with Andy (https://twitter.com/Garbage_Mane) as we go through a few of these topics.