But here's the funny part. This is exactly what Libertarians have been pushing for. Free Speech. Freedom of Association. Less government. What does that lead to? Monopolies. And those Monopolies can choose who they associate with. And if they don't associate with your side then in a Libertarian world, you're screwed.
One of the key reasons I'm against an unregulated free market.
With monopolies you also get those monopolies saying to workers, if you don't accept this pay for this job, that's fine there's a whole lot of other people who are willing to do this job for this measly pay. Forget text books, but the greedy nature of humans, eventually leads an unregulated free market to result in "paid" slavery.
And yes, if there's no minimum wage and people are working 3 or 4 jobs just to make ends meet, that is a system built on slavery. Payment of a wage (that is unlivable on) does not negate that it is slavery. If the reports are true and that people who work at Amazon or Wallmart (in the US), still require government food stamps just to be able to feed themselves because all their other cash has gone to bills, to me that's slavery.
Free speech means that the government can't stop you from saying something. Freedom of association means that you can choose who to do business with. Libertarians generally want unrestricted free speech and unrestricted Freedom of Association, including removing any discrimination laws so Christian bakers can refuse to make cakes for gay weddings while also telling that gay couple that they're an abomination.
But ironically it's these same Libertarians that want Twitter and Facebook to be forced to allow people to post what they want. Which completely breaches Freedom of Association.
I get the argument they make though. Get kicked off Twitter, start your own platform. But you need cloud servers for that platform and companies are blocking you from using their servers, therefore you can't have your own platform.
On twitter there's handles called "Sleeping Giants" who organize boycotts of companies who advertise on certain networks/shows.
So basically it goes like this, as an example:
1. Alan Jones says something racist, sexist, bigoted - He has free speech to say this
2. Groups like sleeping giants hear this and therefore advise companies that as long as they pay advertisement dollars to Alan Jones' show, that the consumer refuses to spend money at that company and will seek a different company - free choice
3. Company evaluates their consumer market, deems if it is a big enough risk, and accordingly makes a "free choice" to remove advertising dollars from Alan Jones
A lot of huff and puff about "free speech" has also been made of the above scenario. However,
1. Companies are free to spend their advertising dollars wherever they want, they can also choose to ignore the boycotts
2. Consumers who care, are free to spend their money wherever they want. Consumers realise that part of THEIR money will pass through to scum like Alan Jones, hence consumer make a FREE CHOICE to spend at a company that doesn't advertise at Alan Jones. However consumers let the company (who advertises with Alan Jones) that this is their planned course of action and advise that company they can retain their clients if they take a specific course of action
3. Alan jones and types like him are free to see the consequences of their bigoted shit and choose not to say it. The same way that their "shock jock" status got them their platform and millions in advertising, the same way it can be taken away.
Their is no impediment to freedom of speech in boycotts. Just thought that that needed to be addressed with this discussion