Thursday, December 29, 2016

Alex Jones Considering Lawsuits Against Facebook and Washington Post

Alex Jones issues his warning:

 

More:

 


 From a libertarian perspective, I am against suing corporations to force them to operate in any specific fashion. That said, I also support the legal harassment of government agencies and agents of the government. I consider operations like the Washington Post agents of the government.

Go Alex!

 -RW

9 comments:

  1. You support aggressions against private property if the property owners are connected to the government? This would excuse aggression against a large percentage of what is considered justly held property in the US.

    Do you consider Facebook a government agent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WaPo and Facebook support aggression against you, your wallet and savings, and foreign countries. They closely align themselves with government policies and often used by government agents. This is more than "connected" - collusion. It's bordering on NGO status. If anything this lawsuit would smack them back a bit.

      Many businesses that are "connected" do so because they're scared not to and more reactive. WaPo and Facebook and other corporations do so proactively.

      Delete
    2. Will,

      This post may lend you a greater understanding of Wenzel's view:

      http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/11/a-haunting-post-about-twitter.html

      Could you elaborate a bit on your below comment that "...as a consequence you are confusing people when it comes to libertarian principles. People see acts like this and view libertarians as hypocrites."

      What are you referring to here and what do you mean exactly?

      Cheers!

      Delete
    3. No private entity has a right to property attained from its pro-active and wilfull cooperation with the government, with the specific intention of furthering their interests at the expense of others.
      Washington Post is a mouthpiece for the state and as such a conspirator for many of the state's crimes.
      Corporations, exactly the same. To the degree that they have deliberately profited from ties to government, they do not have a right to those profits. Many large corporations, by the way, are participants of the Council of Foreign Relations. This alone should make clear the degree to which they collude with the state.
      Facebook, again, colluding with government. Their own policies would mean virtually nothing if there had not been a state to make those policies more destructive of freedom of speech.
      Furthermore, there is making donations to specific authoritarian politicians that is also making people behind those outfits complicit.
      I regard these organizations to be part of the power elite and have no sympathy for them.

      Delete
  2. That may be true, but as a consequence you are confusing people when it comes to libertarian principles. People see acts like this and view libertarians as hypocrites.

    You are willing to willing to punish shareholders in these corporations. I wonder if you are willing to punish shareholders in other corporations like Lockheed Martin, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I wonder if you are willing to punish shareholders in other corporations like Lockheed Martin, etc."

      Is this a rhetorical question? These people are part of the military industrial complex. They shouldn't just be punished financially. They should be on trial for being complicit to war crimes.

      Delete
  3. As a libertarian - not specifically talking now about this case but in general - isn't it ok to sue corporations to act in a specific fashion that is in accordance with an agreed upon contract?

    Now, specifically: Does business with WaPo and so-called journalistic entities that self-designate as such imply a contract of objective fact based reporting; when in error, to as quickly as possible make corrections; otherwise, they are engaging in fraud?

    So, if WaPo reports false information about AJ for instance, is that not fraud and hence a violation of NAP?

    Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Wenzel? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I understand that libertarians can criticize private corporations. The part that is not so cut-and-try is whether they can sue a corporation if it has some fuzzy label like "government agent". Walter Block already defended the undefendable libelers and slanderers. Unfortunately he thought it was ok to sue a corporation and cause damage to its shareholders, who should be shielded from liability for the actions of management, because the corporation was "part of the regime". This is what confuses people about libertarian principles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will, I agree. This statement confuses me:

      "From a libertarian perspective, I am against suing corporations to force them to operate in any specific fashion. That said, I also support the legal harassment of government agencies and agents of the government. I consider operations like the Washington Post agents of the government."

      Perhaps it could be made less so with a bit of elaboration on Wenzel's part...is a sort-of libertarian "blacklist" to be made? Does using government coercion against such blacklisted groups or individuals become a "libertarian" act? Heroic even?....and who is the list maker- the anointed one (a la Sowell)?

      Delete

IMPORTANT: Please note, do not comment anonymously or as "unknown". Such comments will not be approved.

Either log in or use the option to add a name. You may use a pen name but use it consistently for your comments so we can understand the trend of your thinking. Note: Although there is a line to add a web address, it is not required.