The alt-libertarian’s dilemma

Now that Facebook has actually banned Alex Jones’ InfoWars, there are quite a few “conservatives” out there crying censorship, including the “libertarian” kind. I put the word in quotes because they only espout libertarian values when it’s convenient for them, and this is not one of those times.

Former U.S. Representative Ron Paul, poster child of the libertarian movement, is now claiming that Facebook banning InfoWars is actually indirect government censorship through a conspiracy between the U.S. government, and social media networks run by Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter.

Let’s put aside the fact that Paul chose to make these comments to RT, a literal Russian propaganda network. Let’s put aside the fact that Apple is actually still allowing the InfoWars app on its app store, or that Twitter is publicly refusing to ban Alex Jones. Let’s put aside the fact that the notion of a vast conspiracy between the Trump-led U.S. government and tech companies to ban one of Trump’s biggest supporters is preposterous.

Can we just discuss for a minute the absurdity of a renowned “libertarian” arguing that a private company refusing to provide services to someone is censorship?

If you want to learn to spot a Nazi, it’s getting easier with time. Just look for someone who claims to be a principled “conservative” who tosses their values out the window to support other Nazis. It’s even easier to make this logical deduction with “libertarians” like Paul, because they tend to keep their values simple. Less government interference, more individual rights, especially property rights. Paul even said in 2011 that he would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act “because of the property rights element.”

So, to recap, Ron Paul supports property rights that let companies ban black or brown people from entering their stores, but he doesn’t support property rights that let companies ban a raging white supremacist. Hmm.