The people who think only the government can threaten your freedom of speech should read Orwell, who despite 1984 never thought government censorship was a serious threat to the West. He feared social and self censorship brainpickings.org/2013/08/16/the…
What Orwell thought: "The chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of … any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print"
Reason would legalize F-35s for civilian ownership. I love Reason but let's be clear on the libertarian ethos
Private firms limit your freedom and opportunities all the time. Sometimes that's appropriate but especially in a monopoly environment it can be a real problem...

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Zaid Jilani

Zaid Jilani Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ZaidJilani

18 Oct
Joe Biden spent decades (successfully) arguing for harsh punishments towards people involved in nonviolent drug crimes. It would be interesting to hear him explain how his thinking has changed on this as the issue became more personal.
There are many good questions towards Biden if there existed a press corps that were actually impartial and adversarial. One has to wonder if anything would be different on Jan 21, 2021.
"There is now a death penalty. If you are a major drug dealer, involved in the trafficking of drugs, and murder results in your activities, you go to death" - Joe Biden
Read 6 tweets
17 Oct
The very first line in the New York Times Magazine response to latest 1619 criticisms includes a factual error. The Africans who arrived on North American soil in 1619 were bonded, not enslaved. (The TA slave trade had not started yet.) nytimes.com/2020/10/16/mag…
This is a good segment on it...from 2019. In more than a year's time couldn't they correct this?
It's not a small point, irs actually a key point because one the slavery system was internally built up, in the 1640s they started to pass laws to strip bonded people of rights. Then later, slavery became a racialized institution, with ex post facto race science justifications.
Read 5 tweets
17 Oct
I think a satire site writes satire and that's not super confusing. The hall monitor nature of so much coverage these days can be a it much.
Some of these publications are trying just way too hard to put on the "we are just trying to expose misinformation" cap when it's clear they're behaving as partisan operatives targeting one side of the aisle..some people also take The Onion literally. That's just the Internet.
Is the NYT going to demand to see evidence of the duck
Read 4 tweets
17 Oct
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is campaigning for California's Prop 22, a gig economy-backed measure that would define drivers as independent contractors. I don't know if the amount is disclosed, but Uber has supported MADD's campaigns. uber.com/newsroom/reaso…
Uber and MADD's relationship goes back at least to 2014 web.archive.org/web/2015022006…
There is a case to be made for it (as for any proposition) on merits, as against, but I think these financial relationships are interesting. For instance, civil rights groups coming out against Prop 15 after a range of business $ donate to them
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
Romney sounding like he wants to go Independent (come on in, the waters warm).
Although Mitt should hire a copyeditor this things got typos
Mitt's dad, George, also eventually tilted his political career in a wildcard direction
Read 4 tweets
15 Oct
I respect Amash's point of view on this, but this is why the libertarian view of the world hits a wall. Some random consumer can't just create an entirely new rival to a monopoly and everyone knows it. The non-aggression principle doesn't always maximize freedom.
And in fact, there has never been a successful society governed by Amashite principles because it would fall apart in 5 seconds. Even Ronald Reagan who is the most admired Republican broke up telecom monopolies.
At the end of the day this ideology says that the only entity that can restrict your freedom is the government: a private firm can't restrict your freedom. If you believe that fine, there's probably some professorship at GMU waiting for you, but most people don't believe that!
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!