by George Rasley
In a dystopian future envisioned by some of science fiction’s greatest authors, mankind is ruled not by elected leaders or by warlords who came to power through victory in battle. Instead, humans have become the virtual slaves of soulless totalitarian corporations that vie with each other for control of resources and populations.
If you think that bizarre form of fascism is impossible or so unlikely to succeed that you don’t have to worry about it consider the following developments from the past few months.
Facebook, the world’s largest social media “platform” has permanently banned a group of ostensibly conservative writers and thinkers it has labeled purveyors of “hate” and “dangerous individuals.”
Among those banned are Alex Jones, host of InfoWars, its UK editor Paul Joseph Watson, ex-Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, former Republican congressional candidate Paul Nehlen, and independent journalist Laura Loomer.
Keep in mind none of these individuals have killed anyone, threatened to kill someone or committed any crime of incitement or assault – it is their ideas, not their actions that are deemed to be “dangerous” by Facebook dictator Mark Zuckerberg.
Not only are those individuals banned, but any reference to them or links to content created by them is also banned – they have been declared non-persons and any reference to them could result in a declaration of non-personhood for you if you have the temerity to contradict the decision of your unelected corporate overlords.
Of course, not all “dangerous individuals” have been banned by Facebook – only those “dangerous individuals” that Facebook doesn’t like.
Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, whose regime is actually killing people, Muslim terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, that at this very moment are engaged in killing Israelis, Far Left domestic terror organization Antifa that assaults journalists and opponents in Portland, Oregon with impunity and various eco-terrorist organizations still have ready access to Facebook and Instagram.
So, it appears to us that the only individuals and publications Facebook dictator Mark Zuckerberg finds so dangerous they must be banned are those whose ideas threaten the success of the Red-Green Axis of the Far Left and radical Islam – the very people and organization who are so dangerous they are actually killing and assaulting opponents are not labeled “dangerous” because Zuckerberg agrees with them.
As outrageous and dangerous to constitutional liberty as Zuckerberg’s actions at Facebook and Instagram are, there is an even more dangerous trend emerging among Leftist corporations: The refusal of “social justice” oriented corporations to sell products or do business with those whose political or cultural views they disagree.
Outdoor clothing giant Patagonia is one of the most prominent, although there are allegedly some 500 “certified B corporations” in some 60 different industries.
Patagonia will no longer sell its corporate logo vests to companies it views as “ecologically damaging,” a move that comes as part of the corporation’s push to work with organizations that “prioritize the planet,” reported Justin Wise of The Hill.
Mr. Wise reports because of its environmental activism, Patagonia is “reluctant to co-brand with oil, drilling, dam construction, etc. companies that they view to be ecologically damaging.” Wise reports this ban also applies to financial institutions and “political affiliated companies/groups.”
In other words, anyone that Patagonia doesn’t like or whose politics they don’t agree with.
To those who argue that Facebook, Patagonia and others are private companies that should be able to do what they like, imagine for a moment where the logical conclusion of your argument takes us.
Say Jeff Bezos decides to up the ante in the Left’s war with conservatives: Should Whole Foods be able to refuse to sell food to Laura Loomer, or you or me?
Could you be “deplatformed” by CVS or Walgreens, unable to buy prescription drugs there?
Could the national automobile dealers association blacklist “dangerous people” and refuse to sell them cars or the gasoline retailers association decide not to serve those with whom they disagree?
How about housing? The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of various factors, but politics or social credit is not among them. Could you be banned from renting or buying in certain neighborhoods if you are on Mark Zuckerberg’s list of “dangerous people” or you don’t vote right, or vote at all?
And what about internet access? Could you – or your teenage children – be denied internet access unless you toe the Comcast corporate line on immigration or the Wall on our southern border?
It is time for conservatives and libertarians to recognize that the argument that corporations can set their own rules and do business with whomever they want has a fatal flaw. That argument assumes that these businesses operate according to classical free market principles of maximizing profit or return to shareholders, which are no longer the operating principles of many businesses. Instead of profit their goals are now political power and the marginalizing of those who disagree with their management or oppose their oppressive suzerainty.
While constitutional liberty should protect the rights of association and religious liberty, granting businesses the right to determine who they will serve based on the customer’s ideas, political affiliation or viewpoint is the first step toward replacing constitutional liberty with an oppressive system of corporate social credit.
