Two questions must be answered:

1. Can private parties controlling the public square, deprive citizens of their right to free speech?
2. Can Congress empower private parties to regulate competitors?

Congress spectacularly muddled section 230 and the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed it. Fortunately, decades-old Supreme Court cases involving the tech giants of yesteryear, i.e., coal companies, railroads, and company towns, provide guidance on the limits of big tech’s power to regulate the public square.

What does section 230 do?

Section 230 has two primary provisions. The first exempts internet providers from civil liability for publishing any information from another content provider that is objectionable. The second provision exempts Big Tech from liability when it takes voluntary, good faith actions, to restrict objectionable materials or provides the technical means to restrict them.

Private parties cannot deprive unpopular citizens of constitutional rights when governing the public square

By granting Big Tech immunity from civil liability when restricting material from the Internet it deemed objectionable, Congress encouraged and indirectly authorized private parties to regulate speech.  Congress has no constitutional power to authorize private parties to deprive, even unpopular citizens, of their constitutional rights. Moreover, when private parties control the new public square, they function as a government and must provide constitutional rights for all.

These principles are set out in Marsh v. Alabama, (1946). Marsh, a privately owned town, made it illegal for persons to distribute religious literature on its sidewalks. Since the town functioned like any other community having speech and commerce, citizens in the town had the same rights as if in a municipal town. When private parties wield great power over the public’s use of town services, the powers of the private parties are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those using the town. Private property rights are not sufficient to justify restricting fundamental liberties.

Since the First Amendment severely limits governments’ power to regulate political speech, the government cannot grant private parties, functioning as a government, more power than it has. If Congress desires to impose speech limitations on the Internet, it must do so directly, by government regulation that protects the constitutional rights of citizens.

Congress cannot grant private parties the right to regulate competitors

By refusing to sell Parler’s app, and by denying Parler’s access to cloud storage, Google, Apple, and AWS, private parties, relying on a congressional grant of civil immunity, took, in essence, regulatory actions to put another private company out of business. Congress has no constitutional authority to authorize, or foster conduct by private parties, that allows them to regulate other businesses. This has been the law since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decided Carter v. Carter Coal, (1936).  

In Carter, Congress delegated to coal producers and miners the power to impose standards on other producers and miners.  Carter held a private entity “…may not be entrusted with the power to regulate the business of another, and especially a competitor. Any statute which attempts to confer such power undertakes an intolerable and unconstitutional interference with personal liberty and private property. The delegation is so clearly arbitrary, and … a denial of…due process…”

By granting immunity from liability to big tech for restricting materials Big Tech deems objectionable, Congress is sanctioning the regulation of private parties by other private parties, an action it has no constitutional authority to authorize. Regulating competition is the responsibility of the government.

The principles in Carter were upheld by the DC Circuit as recently as 2013 in American Assn of Railroads v.US DOT (reversed on other grounds).

Section 230 immunity from suit encourages Big Tech to assume the regulatory functions of government by regulating the rights of other businesses to speak and compete in the public square. The Constitution does not give Congress or private parties this power.

The post Opinion: Section 230 is an Unconstitutional Delegation of Power to Big Tech appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A Twitter thread celebrating the market cap brought up the question if Elon Musk would ever consider a split of the rapid growing stock. Tesla has gained 113% in the 2nd Quarter, surpassing their pre-COVID high. 

What is a stock split? A standard 2 for 1 split reduces the stock price in half, but doubles the shares. So if Tesla split 2 for 1 at the price of $1080, that would bring the share price down to $540. Shareholders would receive a duplicate share for each one they held. So it all evens out.

The only real benefit to this is to attract new shareholders by making the share price more affordable. Comcast does this somewhat often, generally every few years. Amazon has only split three times, all of which took place between June of 1998 and September of 1999. These splits were before Amazon gained steam, and they’ve never split since.

Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that stock splits are a magic money maker. If that were true, Amazon would have split far more times than three, and much more recently than 1999. A split still keeps an even ratio, as the value of a share is the market cap divided by the total number of shares. If your stock price increases by a dollar, under a split your two shares increase by 50 cents.

However, just on March 18th of this year, at the bottom of the COVID era low, Tesla stock closed at just $361.22, and only began to rise forward rapidly after April 2nd when Tesla closed at $454.47. In other words, Tesla Stock was at a very attractive low price in very recent history, likely lower than the price that a split would provide new investors. Perhaps it’s Woulda Coulda Shoulda for a lot of folks… But I sure did.

However, there is a trading method that allows you to invest what ever amount you would like into a particular stock. It’s called Fractional Shares. 

The same way you can buy a fraction of a Bitcoin, you can buy a fraction of a stock share, whether Tesla, Amazon, or whichever. If you put a $100 into a fractional share of Tesla, then your $100 doubles when the Tesla stock price doubles. You can do it with $1 if you please and maybe buy a McDouble with your earnings. 

The popular and free trading app Robinhood allows for purchasing Fractional Shares. Click on this link to be redirected to your App Store to download Robinhood, and receive a free share of random stock for joining.

Update: Prior to the release of this article in Wednesday morning trading, Tesla’s market cap grew to $207 billion, exceeding Toyota’s $202 billion. Tesla is now the world’s most valuable automaker.

The post Elon Musk Entertains The Idea Of A Tesla Stock Split appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Happy Sunday, Liberty Lovers!

Fact: Communism sucks.

The one-child policy was one of the crazy programs that Communist China implemented in an effort to control its population. I watched an incredibly disturbing and eye-opening documentary about the one-child policy called “One Child Nation.” It showed me just how powerful propaganda can be when a government is trying to force its people to act. T

his is why we must stay woke! Also, remember to give your siblings a hug

Watch “One Child Nation” here.

Visit the official “One Child Nation” website: https://www.onechildnation.com/

Be Free!
Steffi

Connect with Steffi:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Goodreads
Subscribe to her YouTube channel!
Amazon Store
Patreon

The post One Child Nation [REVIEW] ~ Sundays With Steffi appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Chris White 

Amazon claimed in a legal complaint Monday that the company lost a $10-billion cloud-computing project because President Donald Trump wanted to deny its billionaire CEO a big government contract.

Trump used “improper pressure” on the contract process to hurt Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos, the legal complaint noted. The tech company was viewed as a top contender to win the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) project before it was given to Microsoft in October.

The president launched a full-on assault against the company behind the scenes to hurt “his perceived political enemy,” the legal complaint added.

Controversy has plagued the cloud computing program.

Computing giant Oracle, for instance, alleged in May that former Defense Department official Deap Ubhi was offered shares in Amazon and a salary with the big tech giant while he was finding a company to help build out JEDI. Ubhi never recused himself, according to the document.

The process grew even more toxic after Trump found out about Amazon’s involvement in the project. Conservatives have long argued that such a program should not go exclusively to one company.

It’s become a controversial issue among some Republicans. Reps. Steve Womack of Arkansas and Tom Cole of Oklahoma, for instance, requested a probe in October 2018 into the Pentagon’s handling of the deal. This came after the Daily Caller News Foundation reported in 2018 that an adviser to former Secretary of Defense James Mattis once consulted for Amazon Web Services through her firm.

Amazon has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The DOD refused to comment on Amazon’s claims, citing the company’s litigation, but spokeswoman Elissa Smith told the DCNF the contract was doled out by experts who were not externally influenced.

“There were no external influences on the source selection decision. The department is confident in the JEDI award and remains focused on getting this critical capability into the hands of our warfighters as quickly and efficiently as possible,” she said.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Bezos Declares War On Trump After WH Officials Deny Amazon Mega Cloud Computing Contract appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Mary Margaret Olohan on September 26, 2019

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said losing to President Donald Trump was like losing to a “corrupt human tornado.”

Clinton spoke about losing the 2016 presidential election in a CBS interview that will air Sunday morning.

“It was like applying for a job and getting 66 million letters of recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado,” Clinton told CBS’s Jane Pauley.

WATCH:

Coming up this #SundayMorning

“It was like…losing to a corrupt human tornado.”

Jane Pauley catches up with former First Lady Hillary Clinton and former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton about the book they co-authored, “The Book of Gutsy Women” https://t.co/pnSCfkDZAR pic.twitter.com/C1vSWQPabl

— CBS Sunday Morning ???? (@CBSSunday) September 26, 2019

The interview will also feature Chelsea Clinton as the mother and daughter discuss the book they co-authored, “The Book of Gutsy Women,” set to publish Oct. 1.

The book will tell the stories of women who have inspired the Clinton women – “women with the courage to stand up to the status quo, ask hard questions, and get the job done.”

“This book is the continuation of a conversation the two of us have been having since I was little,” wrote Chelsea Clinton, according to the book’s Amazon description. “For me, too, my mom was a hero; so were my grandmothers. My early teachers were also women.”

“But I grew up in a world very different from theirs,” the Clinton daughter added. “My pediatrician was a woman, and so was the first mayor of Little Rock who I remember from my childhood. Most of my close friends’ moms worked outside the home as nurses, doctors, teachers, professors, and in business. And women were going into space and breaking records here on Earth.”

The post Hillary Says Losing To Trump Was Like Losing To A ‘Corrupt Human Tornado’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Fires have been spreading across the Amazon in Brazil beyond seasonal expectations, since the beginning of 2019.

This month has been particularly brutal for the Brazillian state of Amazonas. August has seen the highest number of fires reported since 2010, worse yet, experts say the cause of the wildfires is largely due to man-made fires, according to CNN.

The man-made fires are by and large started intentionally for freshly zoned legitimate and illegal slash-and-burn farming, but many have spread out of control, according to Vox. Although President Bolsanaro originally called news of the fires “sensationalist,” the Brazilian president ordered the nation’s army to participate in fire fighting efforts on Saturday, according to Vox.

Experts report that there have been 77,000 wildfires so far this year. That number is up 85% from last year’s figures, the Associated Press reported Friday.

International pressure and citizen protests have been mounting since the 3-week-old fires gained the world’s attention this week when pictures of ash-darkened city streets hit Twitter.

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both called for action from Bolsanaro in the days leading up to his declaration that the military would be supporting firefighting efforts.

Citizen protestors and foreign dignitaries seem to uniformly credit the recent uptick in deforestation to Bolesano’s rhetoric, as he campaigned on industrial development and looser environmental regulations.

Bolsanaro has categorically rejected these claims, accusing nonprofits, which are collecting data on the fires, of being the cause of them, according to the Washington Post. He has not provided any evidence for these claims.

Written by Anna Rdzok

The post Massive Fires In The Amazon Dominate World News Overnight appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

“There’s no question they’ve limited competition,” he said. “If you look at Amazon, although there are certain benefits to it, it destroyed the retail industry across the United States, so there’s no question they’ve limited competition.”

Defending the Department of Justice’s decision to investigate antitrust issues involving companies like Amazon, Mnuchin praised the agency’s resolve.

“I think it’s very good that the attorney general is going to look into this. I think it’s an important issue and I look forward to him reporting back to the president and hearing his recommendations.”

The Justice Department, in an effort to show that it’s doing something about so-called monopolies, is opening an antitrust review into companies such as Alphabet, Facebook, and Amazon, alleging that their business model may have “reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.”

While Mnuchin may blindly believe that these claims hold water, it’s difficult to imagine that President Donald Trump’s Treasury secretary would be completely clueless as to what actually helped major companies like Google to become undefeatable in the current market structure.

Furthermore, Amazon may have been a major player in the destabilization of chain mega bookstores, but not because it seeks somehow seeks harm to them. As a matter of fact, small bookstores have been thriving like never before. And small companies, especially those with limited access to consumers from out of state, are also reaping the benefits from partnering with Amazon.

So why would Mnuchin claim that Amazon is acting unfairly? Could it be that he’s trying to cover for his employer?

Monopolies Only Exist Because of Government

Through patent and copyright laws, the government gives big tech companies power over potential competitors. This means that the supply of a good or service offered by the tech industry is restricted, as there are fewer providers entering the market due to the government-imposed barriers. This alone gives large tech firms all they need to remain at the top.

Because of this dynamic, and the fact that government is the one creating giants in each sector of the economy because of artificially raised barriers, that government every now and then uses antiquated antitrust laws to go after firms like Amazon.

After all, giving the appearance that the state is doing something for consumers beats actually admitting that any problem the latter may now face due to a restricted supply of a certain good or service is all thanks to government involvement.

Additionally, companies like Amazon might be big and powerful, but they are far from monopolies, even with all the help they get from the government.

Currently, Amazon controls only 5 percent of the country’s total retail market and only 1 percent of the world’s economy. But while this share gives it a financial advantage over others, it doesn’t mean that competitors aren’t around.

The reason why Amazon is beloved by consumers is because it puts the internet to work by making shopping a more pleasant and convenient experience. Unfortunately, the firm will continue to serve as a scapegoat for government, especially as it claims that its involvement in the economy has nothing to do with the stifling of certain industries.

So if Mnuchin is, indeed, worried about consumers and consumer choice, attacking Amazon shouldn’t be a top priority. Instead, how about taking what his boss, President Donald Trump, said seriously and start draining the swamp?

Crony capitalism is why there are, indeed, virtual monopolies in every major industry in America. But to put an end to the give-and-take relationship between big firms and the government, the state must completely exit the regulation business. Needless to say, Mnuchin wouldn’t be interested in that, as he and most of his colleagues would suddenly be out of a job.

Chloe Anagnos

The post Trump’s Treasury Secretary Is Wrong About Amazon appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The popular notion of indifferent-to-employee CEOs is so very divorced from reality. I’ve never met one who enjoyed being the bearer of bad news to workers who, in many instances, had dependents.

My friend ultimately devised a fix so that he could avoid what was so disagreeable. He designed a production-based compensation structure so that the employees could succeed or fail on their own. So quantitative was it that some of the highest paid employees worked the fewest hours, and vice versa. No sucking up to the boss, no necessary “face time” in the office, just production tied to compensation. And if they didn’t produce they would know this without being told. It would show up in pay. Basically, they would “fire themselves.”

A “Sweatshop” That Fosters “Suffering”?

Hall of Fame football coach Bill Parcells once said, “You are what your record says you are,” and this CEO essentially applied Parcells’s maxim to the workplace. He was able to sleep easier as employees self-selected out of his company as opposed to him having to tell them to leave. His employees were happy and so was he.

All this came to mind while reading Matthew Walther’s recent piece from The Week in which he accused Amazon of being a “sweatshop.” Walther laments the “human suffering” that allegedly takes place at Amazon since its warehouse workers are “collectively subject to an oppressive system of automated performance review.” It’s no insult of Walther to suggest he’s likely never run a business, and that he’s unfamiliar with the acute agony associated with letting people go.

Had he run one, and were he familiar with how awful it is to tell individuals it’s not working out, he would understand that quantitative parameters very much redound to the employee as much or more than they do the CEO. For one, they make it possible for marginal candidates to get hired in the first place. Forget connections or anything else that leads to employment; quantitative measuring exists as a path for individuals to prove their worth.

Indeed, how often have readers said something along the lines of “If I could just get my foot in the door I would show them”? Amazon has, if Walther’s analysis is to be believed, designed a system that creates a pathway into one of the world’s most valuable companies. And a path to increased pay, if its more open door leads to the arrival of productive employees.

Useful here is that Amazon is hardly alone in setting standards. Nearly all great companies do, and nearly all great companies make plain that they’ll shed the low performers on an annual basis. That they do similarly redounds to the worker. Employees know in advance what’s expected of them, or at least know their continued employment will be a consequence of them executing in above average fashion. Why would anyone want to be well below average, and expect to be paid in perpetuity for it? That’s only possible in government…

Creating Opportunity

Quantitative performance measurement also once again makes it possible for the eager to get the job in the first place. To understand this, it’s worth remembering why unemployment in Europe is generally higher than it is stateside. One driving factor is that it’s hard to fire employees who aren’t making the cut. Better yet, it’s very expensive for businesses to hire in consideration of all the rules related to severance and the like. So with shedding the underperformers in Europe a difficult process, so is hiring them to begin with. Amazon, by virtue of it laying out what must be achieved in advance, is creating opportunity. Absent “automated performance review” that weeds out those who aren’t up to the job, Amazon wouldn’t be able to give a chance to the many individuals who are up to working for the Seattle retailer.

Walther further laments that “[W]henever 75 percent of employees are meeting certain pre-assigned goals, the numbers reportedly can be increased.” Well, of course. Without knowing how Walther is compensated, does he really think he could continue to toil as a writer (salary or hourly wage) if his output (and quality of it) in no way grew? Can the readers reading this piece say with a straight face that they shouldn’t be required to improve at whatever they’re doing? Would anyone want to do anything day after day, and year after year, without getting better at the chosen activity? Work and life would be miserable without improvement.

And while it’s shooting fish in a crowded barrel to state the obvious about how businesses aren’t charities and that productivity increases are the only way to keep the doors open, sometimes the obvious must be stated. Furthermore, how very cruel to the worker if the employer thinks so little of him as to not demand relentless betterment. As individuals we all remember—frequently fondly—the people who got more out of us than we thought we had.

Unprecedented Employee Growth

It’s also likely that Walther leaves out another driver of Amazon’s routine increases in terms of “pre-assigned goals.” Logic dictates that the company regularly invests in productivity enhancements that enable greater and greater work specialization. Rising productivity is naturally a consequence of investment, so the boost in “pre-assigned goals” that has given Walther the vapors is actually quite logical.

Notable about all this is that workers plainly agree that Amazon’s working conditions are pretty logical. Indeed, according to The New York Times, Amazon reached 300,000 employees faster than any public company in history. It wouldn’t have if conditions were of the “sweatshop” variety, and if the work culture were defined by “human suffering.” Unemployment is presently low, there are countless employers out there that aren’t Amazon, yet people flock to Amazon.

They also flock to the city in which Amazon is headquartered. As the Times recently reported, Seattle has had more giant construction cranes than any other U.S. city for three years running. Workers go to where the opportunity is, which means Seattle is increasingly populated by individuals not from there. It seems actual workers similarly know something Walther does not.

This article was republished with permission from RealClearMarkets.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post If Amazon Is a “Sweatshop,” Why Do so Many People Want to Work There? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Grace Carr

Food stamp users will be able to purchase their groceries online in a pilot partnership program between mega-supermarket companies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The USDA announced Thursday its launch of a “SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot” permitting food stamp users to buy their groceries online for pickup or delivery. Amazon and Walmart are participating in the program and will be joined by ShopRite supermarket chain next week, according to the department.

Amazon and ShopRite will operate the pilot program out of New York City for resident Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) users. Walmart will run its program in upstate New York, according to the USDA.

“People who receive SNAP benefits should have the opportunity to shop for food the same way more and more Americans shop for food – by ordering and paying for groceries online,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a Thursday statement announcing the program’s launch.

Food stamps enable roughly 40 million Americans, about 12 percent of the U.S. population, to access free food, according to Reuters.

“SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net,” according to the USDA.

Amazon shoppers using food stamps will be able to shop on Prime Pantry and AmazonFresh, two subscription services that usually require membership fees.

“The pilot will eventually expand to other areas of New York as well as Alabama, Iowa, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington,” according to the USDA’s statement.

Walmart has approximately 275 stores offering online order and grocery pickup in the states eligible for the food stamp pilot program, according to spokeswoman Molly Blakeman, Reuters reported.

“We look forward to monitoring how these pilots increase food access and customer service to those we serve, specifically those who may experience challenges in visiting brick and mortar stores,” Perdue said Thursday.

Follow Grace on Twitter.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Progress? Gov’t Now Offers Welfare on the World Wide Web! appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The account mocked Ocasio-Cortez for the implosion of a deal with Amazon to build a new headquarters in New York City that would’ve brought approximately 25,000 new jobs to the city. Ocasio-Cortez criticized the deal for the billions in tax breaks the company was seeking, but was ridiculed by many people for implying that the money existed apart from the agreement and could be used elsewhere.

It was expected that the deal would have gained New York City $30 billion in tax revenue in exchange for $3 billion in tax cuts.

The anonymous troll account made up the pizza coupon analogy to mock Ocasio-Cortez, receiving over 11,000 retweets.

AOC clearly had a problem with the joke being made at her expense, so she fired back in a tweet, attempting to re-write the joke to her benefit.

Whether or not Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s all caps response is an appropriate representation of the tax break negotiations between Amazon,and the city of New York is left up to the reader to decide.

Twitter showed no mercy to AOC’s attempted clapback.

The post You mad bro? AOC Can’t Take a Joke Over NYC Canceling Amazon Deal appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.