Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Herbert Nowell's avatar

Apparently my comment is too long so I apologize for multiples.

"While technically correct, I’ve never understood why this take on free speech is so compelling."

A first pass guess would be this: our concepts and langugae for discussing freedom grew out of an era where beyond government there were few institutions with the power to generally supress speech. The closest, the various churches, were generally strongly attached to governments in the spaces where they had they much power or just as afraid of the government where they weren't. Considering specifically the English speaking world, the Church of England was an arm of the state to the point where the nominal head of both was the same person. The various Protestant sects were under the gun from Church and often state, which lead to much of the early colonization of the US from the United Kingdom.

In fact, this binding of church and state was as concerning as the state limiting speech they are both prohibited by the same amendment to the US Constitution (at least at the Federal level).

The idea that the proprietor of a coffee shop could toss out people who spoke as he didn't like was not so threatening as he had dozens of competitors within a few blocks. Coffee shops were under the control of two or three nation spanning institutions like Starbucks or Caribou with only the few random independents scattered here and there so the coffee shop proprietor had a limited ability to surpress speech in a general way.

"Shouldn’t banks, as private institutions, be free to do business, or not, with whomever they see fit?"

To the limited extend these instituions' growing power has been discussed it is in the limited answer to this question: the idea of the common carrier.

The idea, to the best of my knowledge, comes from the early development of railroads but was arguably most widely applied ni the US to AT&T. When a railroad became the required form of transport for a company to be economically viable they did have the power you describe, to cancel by "de-railroading" and thus the idea of a common carrier was born. Grossly oversimplified it said if you served an area you could not refuse to service a given customer who could pay for the service.

Banks, as monopoly holders on financial services granted that power by governments (there is no such thing as a bank without a government charter) should be subject to a version of common carrier status.

So should social media companies given the degree they've become the public square although the lines on that are much fuzzier in my head than around banking which I have given some thought.

Expand full comment
Matthew A Larson's avatar

In real dictatorships it is easy to follow the rules for the most part. They are usually clear and well known, even if they aren't officially laid out, and are usually only narrowly restrictive.. What we've had in America this last decade is a dictatorship of vibes that is constantly changing and encompasses every facet of life. In that way, it is more akin to totalitarianism than authoritarianism... which is why people vote for President Trump. They'll take an authoritarian who will take it to the totalitarian left... and from a personal liberties perspective, that actually makes a lot of sense, especially when you're part of the outgroup being targeted by the modern US cultural "Red Guards".

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts