What If the "Right" Behaved a Bit Like the "Left"

Imagine that the “Right” behaved a bit like the “Left.” Not that it would smash store windows or loot businesses, but just express itself in strong, justified protest.

What would it be doing right now, based on its belief that the election was being stolen from it, not only by the illegal manufacture of massive numbers of ballots for Biden, but also in good part because of a deliberate news blackout about the alleged corruption of Biden?

Would it not perhaps temporarily occupy and trash the offices of such publications as the NY Times and Washington Post, and the offices of such outfits as CNN, MSNBC, and Twitter and Facebook, who did everything possible to keep that news from their members?

What about the offices of corrupt mayors in jurisdictions where the vote manufacturing has taken place?

Would such behavior constitute a violation of private property rights? Or would it be an act of just and relatively modest retaliation against those who’ve violated the right to a free and honest election, which right is an essential check against arbitrary government?

Would such militant protest be helpful or harmful to the cause of freedom? Would it be an exercise in futility or, worse, self-destruction, or would it be an action similar in character to the Boston Tea Party?

A Possible Free-Market Way of Counteracting the Leftwing Bias of Today’s Internet Tech Companies

Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others are frequently guilty of leftwing bias in their treatment of comments, internet searches, and publication of content in general, for which behavior they are frequently denounced as guilty of “censorship.”

Actually, while private individuals and companies can do intellectually detestable things, they cannot commit censorship. Censorship is possible only when a writer or speaker has the agreement of the owner of a publishing venue to present his ideas.

If he has that agreement and is stopped from presenting his ideas by the government, or by private individuals acting with the sanction of the government, such as disrupters whom the police refuse to arrest preventing him from being heard, then there is censorship.

To make the same point in different words, if the detestable New York Times refuses of publish me, or even acknowledge my existence, that is not censorship. Censorship exists if they were willing to publish me but were stopped by the government or a government-sanctioned gang.

The way to deal with Twitter et al. is by means of one or more counter websites that are willing to publish what Twitter et al. hide. This would both deprive them of any ability to block content and also seriously tarnish their reputations if they did not change their behavior.

There are many concrete problems that would need to be worked out in launching such a website. But here’s a possible name and a slogan for one such site: “Can’t find what you’re looking for in Google? Try ‘Second Search.’ We feature what Google hides.”

The problems in starting such a website are numerous and large. But they do not include having to compete across the board with the leftist sites. The area of competition is only where the leftist sites are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

And then it is essentially just a matter of showing what they’ve tried to hide.

For books and essays by the author, see https://amzn.to/2NLvVVZ