Bureaucracy intervention hinders our freedom and economic side hustles. Much like a tick or leach, they want to get rich off the hard work and social influence of others by regulating, imposing fees, and taxes. All while not haveing contributed anything positive to society themselves.
I don't know if I could make the claim that 'most' people who are on social media have a thousand or more followers, but I can make the claim that loads and loads and loads of people have a thousand or more followers.
Even my little Masonic Lodge, that has a rarely updated Facebook account as kind of an afterthought has roughly 1500 followers.
If Dreyfuss' policy proposals were accepted, and my Lodge had a cigar smoking event (which we have done from time to time) and posted pictures about it (which we have also done from time to time) we would suddenly find ourselves subject to FTC regulation, for the promotion of a tobacco product.
But of course we would in no way be promoting a tobacco product. We would be making a post about a fun event we held, and encouraging other Masons to come to our next one.
And this would filter down to individuals.
One fellow I know makes a daily post on social media, with some little nugget of wisdom. Something that he has learned that has made his life better. He's done that for a long time, and his posts reach a really large number of people. But he illustrates every post with a photograph of a glass of whiskey and a cigar. His posts as well would suddenly become subject to regulation.
Ultimately what would happen is a whole lot of people would be violating the law, without even realizing that they were doing so.
I guess to my mind, we keep hearing about the American people losing faith and trust in our institutions. Certainly Harvard has been deluged with this over the past months, and legacy media for even longer. Publishing nonsense like Dreyfuss' editorial certainly erodes trust in both of those institutions even further.
The vast number of Americans greatly value their ability to express their ideas. Large legacy institutions would serve themselves well by remembering that.
Pretty crazy, and in my opinion we have far too many government institutions which becomes just another costs for tax paying citizens. As noted by Javier Milei, these institutions who run the quise as helping to solve problems are themselves as collectivism, the problem.
Dreyfuss would first have to prove intent, in a court of law to even make sense. Not something tax dollars should be funding.
Bureaucracy intervention hinders our freedom and economic side hustles. Much like a tick or leach, they want to get rich off the hard work and social influence of others by regulating, imposing fees, and taxes. All while not haveing contributed anything positive to society themselves.
I don't know if I could make the claim that 'most' people who are on social media have a thousand or more followers, but I can make the claim that loads and loads and loads of people have a thousand or more followers.
Even my little Masonic Lodge, that has a rarely updated Facebook account as kind of an afterthought has roughly 1500 followers.
If Dreyfuss' policy proposals were accepted, and my Lodge had a cigar smoking event (which we have done from time to time) and posted pictures about it (which we have also done from time to time) we would suddenly find ourselves subject to FTC regulation, for the promotion of a tobacco product.
But of course we would in no way be promoting a tobacco product. We would be making a post about a fun event we held, and encouraging other Masons to come to our next one.
And this would filter down to individuals.
One fellow I know makes a daily post on social media, with some little nugget of wisdom. Something that he has learned that has made his life better. He's done that for a long time, and his posts reach a really large number of people. But he illustrates every post with a photograph of a glass of whiskey and a cigar. His posts as well would suddenly become subject to regulation.
Ultimately what would happen is a whole lot of people would be violating the law, without even realizing that they were doing so.
I guess to my mind, we keep hearing about the American people losing faith and trust in our institutions. Certainly Harvard has been deluged with this over the past months, and legacy media for even longer. Publishing nonsense like Dreyfuss' editorial certainly erodes trust in both of those institutions even further.
The vast number of Americans greatly value their ability to express their ideas. Large legacy institutions would serve themselves well by remembering that.
Pretty crazy, and in my opinion we have far too many government institutions which becomes just another costs for tax paying citizens. As noted by Javier Milei, these institutions who run the quise as helping to solve problems are themselves as collectivism, the problem.
Dreyfuss would first have to prove intent, in a court of law to even make sense. Not something tax dollars should be funding.