Thursday, December 19, 2013

Libertarian Duckspeaking

When I posted THIS about the Duck Dynasty dust-up this morning, I didn't expect what I got, seriously, especially from libertarians, who keep disappointing me lately.  Go ahead and read it, and you'll see that it's all about why Phil Roberson was fired and why the left hates him and those like him. There isn't one damn word in the whole post about his "freedom of speech" being violated, or any implication that there was anything here covered by the First Amendment. The post wasn't about that, and wouldn't have been, because of course the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to such business decisions, nor does "freedom of speech."  Any beginning libertarian or conservative is well aware of that principle.

But, some people who no doubt pride themselves on their deep thinking somehow misread the post (or didn't read, it, but just saw the words "Duck Dynasty"), and replied to it as though I'd written that Robertson' freedom of speech had been violated and the First Amendment was relevant.  Here's how it went:

FIRST GUY At the risk of painting a huge target between my eyes.... If you believe in freedom of thought, don't you need to support A&E's right to disagree with Robertson's opinion, and remove him from their network if they choose?

[Here it begins.  Somehow he read the post and thinks I came out against A&E's right to fire him. Or did he read it?]

SECOND GUY I personally agree with Phil's right to say what he feels. I also agree with A&E's right to suspend him for saying something they disagree with. Finally I agree with my right to boycott A&E for doing something I disagree with. All of this without any government intervention. Freedom of speech doesn't always include freedom from consequences. If you walk into your bosses office and tell him he's a douche, he might just fire you. You have the right to say it and he has the right to fire you. Freedom of speech means that Phil will not be arrested or prosecuted for his words by the government.

[All true, but completely unrelated to the post.]

THIRD GUY Agreed, people have the right to say what they want but must deal with the repercussions (out of a tv show). Companies and individuals have the right to associate or dissociate with whom they choose but must deal with the repercussions (less viewers).

THIRD GUY Second Guy, you hit the nail on the head, great response.

[We are all so smart, understanding these things so well.]

ME  All of that is completely obvious, of course, but it's not the point of the post, is it?

SECOND GUY  Thank you, I just get tired of people talking about freedom of speech when something like this happens. I said the same things when Hank Williams Jr got dropped from ESPN.

[I get tired of it too, but it didn't take place in this post, did it?]

FOURTH GUY  let the consumers decide

ME  Is there anything whatsoever in that post about freedom of speech? Hm? Please react to the post, not stuff you've read elsewhere as though it were part of the post.

FIFTH GUY Today on Facebook:

Some redneck reality TV star exercises his right of free speech and liberals lose their shit.

A&E responds by exercising their right to freedom of association (or non-association in this case) and conservatives lose their shit.

Meanwhile, you know that thing that was happening in Syria while Miley Cyrus made "twerking" famous? Did you know that's still going on (the Syria thing, not the twerking thing) and people are still dying?

Good job, Facebook.

[Least irrelevant comment of the bunch]

ME   Actually, that's true liberalism, especially considering the copious use of the word "redneck.'"

And so it went.  See what I mean by disappointed?  Libertarians duckspeaking like liberals.  Pathetic.


  1. Here's my take on it:

    Not all gays are leftists - some of us are far from it!

  2. You've got to quit being disappointed by Libertarians. 75% of them are just liberals in other clothing. They think they're hip, but they're not fooling anyone, they're just as anti-freedom and pro-statist as most lefties.