The Power to Destroy
Chief Justice John Marshall was famously quoted in the 1819 Supreme Court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland saying, “the power to tax is the power to destroy”.
In some circles this statement may reign true, in others it would be considered an egregiously dramatic misrepresentation of taxation. But what is certainly undeniable is the fact that taxation, taken to its logical end, will destroy.
The logistics of destroying via the use of taxation need not be teased out in order to make such a statement, rather consider the obvious fact that a business or industry facing a 100% tax rate or something to that effect, would be unable to survive for very long.
The absolute conclusion of policy taken to the extreme may seem like an irrelevant perspective by which to view political policies. Of course, gradations of policies and laws are the very basis upon which the United States is built.
Murder may be illegal, but not if it is committed in preservation of your own or someone else’s life.
Speech may be free, but specifically inciting violence, though technically an exercise of free speech, is disallowed under the rule of law.
The point is that we operate in a system that hangs in the balance between absolutes, many things that are illegal are not absolutely illegal, many things that are legal are not absolutely legal.
In certain cases, such as those listed above, determining where in the sphere of legality a certain action falls can be made quite clear. There are situations where authorities would be able to almost conclusively determine if someone acted out of self-defense, or if someone’s language was a directive to commit a crime. There may be scenarios where the issues become more complicated to discern, but clear-cut cases of each could conceivably exist.
If we turn our attention to the modern phenomenon that is sweeping the nation, that being big tech and the regulatory steps that many believe need to be taken, we very quickly find ourselves in uncharted territory.
The political positions seem to be split into three distinct camps, those who believe big tech need not be regulated at all, those who believe big tech needs to abide by the First Amendment and allow all forms of legal speech, and those who believe that big tech needs to censor even more than they already are.
Putting aside the boilerplate language that everyone is seemingly required to use when they begin to criticize a system that exists and sometimes leads to an undesirable result, of course we wish people did not say things that were offensive or wrong, we can not regulate what people think and furthermore, we cannot begin to regulate what companies do. For doing so forgoes the principles that we so desperately seek to preserve.
The frustration surrounding being banned by big tech is undoubtedly existent, I have experienced it myself to a small degree, but the call to regulate, whether it be with increased or decreased censorship, is problematic no matter how it is viewed.
If we veer towards the more desirable of the two forms of regulation, forcing companies to abide by the First Amendment, the door is opened for allowing government intervention into the private sector. Though the result of this intervention may be desirable for Conservatives, taken to the logical conclusion, we would be beginning to allow the government to intervene wherever private businesses go against the interests of their potential clientele. All Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are, at their cores, are services that we elect to use. If we find that they do not meet our needs, we are free to go elsewhere, create our own competitive networks, and acquire the part of the American population that opposes being censored to any degree.
In looking at the other form of regulation, asking big tech to increase the amount of censorship to stop the spread of “disinformation”, a term that is so arbitrary and so obviously a euphemism for “Conservative ideas, do the champions of such proposals realize that the government which they despised for the past four years would have been in control of determining what is and what is not allowed on social media?
I would hope that the Republican party would not stoop to the point of disallowing the spread of Democrat ideas, but what is the purpose in vesting such power into the government?
Taking the idea to the logical extreme means that while the Democrat party is in control, big tech may be forced to cater to their ideas on “disinformation”, but as soon as the Republican party takes control, “disinformation” would most certainly take on a new meaning.
I can understand why a party would want to prevent their opposition from espousing their opposing viewpoint freely, it solidifies control of the population, I may not agree with it, but I understand it.
What I cannot understand is how, on the coattails of President Donald J. Trump, a man who people compared to Hitler, the same people can turn around and relinquish more of their rights to the government, put more decisions in the hands of the government, and ultimately risk that in four years, if the Democrats do not maintain control of the government, someone fitting a similar architype to President Donald J. Trump could be the one in charge of the oversight committee which allows or disallows the circulation of “offensive” content on social media.
The social media companies already lean heavily in favor of the Democrat party. As the age-old question goes: If it ain’t broke, why are the Democrats trying to ruin it?
The point is quite clear, we hear your complaints, we hear your fears, the information being spread does not align with what you believe and, in many cases, does not align with what most people believe. This is very scary to many folks. Thinking is the beginning of action and thinking in ways which are demonstrably wrong can lead to morally bad outcomes.
But beginning to arbitrate what can be said is a very scary path upon which to travel. There are those people who are originally outcasted for their new and innovative beliefs because they fall outside that which is known and comfortable. In many cases, out casting these fringe beliefs is deserved and the beliefs that are so shocking and unbelievable are rightfully ridiculed and cast aside.
But who is to determine those ideas which should be cast aside other than society as a whole?
To play into the minds of those people who might disagree vehemently with my suggestion that we forgo attempts to continuously censor speech, it was not so long ago that homosexual relationships were illegal, people did not accept each other as equals on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Espousing pro-gay or anti-segregation sentiments at one time would have made you a social pariah. Nowadays, contrary to what many people would have you believe, anti-gay or pro-segregation sentiments would ruin your life entirely regardless of if you fall on the left, right, or somewhere in between.
If you do not believe me, test it out.
Ideas come and go, some stick around and become intertwined within our society. Lest we are submitting that our society is absolutely perfect and no new ideas are necessary for the rest of time, let us preserve free speech, preserve the rights of social media and tech companies to make or break their companies on the basis of or contrary to their political beliefs, let us keep America and Americans free, for we are truly one of the last beacons of liberty on this planet.
