buying it

 “ All religions must be tolerated, and the sole concern of authorities should be to see that one does not molest another, for here every man must be saved in his own way.”–Frederick the Great, Cabinet Order, June 22, 1740.

Those are the words of Frederick the great, 1740. They are a version of what Epictetus said and I'm certain that Frederick the great was aware of that. He had been educated in the classics. The thing is as King of Prussia he applied that philosophy to government. I expect it was more of a political move than anything else. It probably didn't matter to whoever had been suppressed before that edict was imposed. Or should I say, before tolerance of other beliefs. What's interesting to note is his inclusion of, "that one does not molest another" in his statement. Epictetus said: " All religions must be tolerated, for every man must get to heaven in his own way. " He placed no restriction on that action. Frederick the great pointed out that government (authorities) should ensue that your religion doesn't involve killing me. I agree with his interpretation of Epictetus original thought. 

 I was thinking about this as I read some postings on Facebook. That company is now under attack, of sorts, by freedom loving patriots. The issue being censorship and the acquisition of competing companies in order to establish a monopoly. I'm not fully informed on all of that but it is going to litigation. It is the control of information that is at the heart of all that. To paraphrase Epictetus and Frederick the great, all media must be tolerated. The authorities should ensure that no one venue of information controls all the information. That, in my opinion, is becoming an issue here in America. The main stream media outlets are controlled by a select group of billionaires. It is my feeling they are manipulating information to their own benefit. As Frederick the great pointed out, they should not be allowed to do so by harming others. "Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored" (Aldous Huxley) nor do they change because you don't like those facts. How are we to get the truth without hearing all the possibilities? 

 It is becoming a common practice. Someone makes a statement, the media groups do not like that statement, the statement is then labeled as "fake news" or the person misspoke. That is what they said, but that isn't what they meant to say. It is the same process that attorneys have been using forever. Yes, that is what it says, but that isn't what it means. You are then told to change your thinking to align with their interpretation. They are correct because they are so much better educated than you or I. The second amendment is the poster child for that argument. What does it say? "Shall not be infringed" is the pivotal phrase. I'm 100% positive I know what that means yet many "scholars" argue otherwise. Their arguments always center around a different topic however, like whether that applies to modern arms. Arms are arms is my thought. A model T and a Rolls Royce are both automobiles aren't they? Recently Facebook has hired a group of fact checkers. If you take the time to read the fact checkers explanation of why they label something as fake or misleading, it is always based on their opinion. So, the fact checkers aren't really checking facts at all, they are checking whether you are following the proposed narrative correctly. This is what it is, but not what we want it to be, so we will change the fact. 

 Yes this should be the concern of the authorities. Freedom of the press is what we call that. It is a major portion of the founding fathers' approach to government. Citizens run the government, and as such, the citizens need to be fully informed with all the facts of the matter. No one has a right to censor what others are thinking and presenting to others as fact, except, when that information causes harm. Think libel, slander and misrepresentation of goods or services. There is legal recourse for those actions, also the reason you can't holler fire in a movie theater. Even privately owned companies, such as Facebook, can not be allowed to control the flow of information. It is a fine line to draw however. I am under no obligation to use Facebook, to read anything presented there, and therefore in a sense they have no obligation to report anything. They also have a right to their opinion on the validity of a statement or other facts. Still isn't there an implied obligation? A sense of civic duty? Apparently not, as evidenced by their fact checkers. Just put your side of the story out there and refute, debunk, or disparage anything you don't agree with. 

 You could say that is the price we have to pay for something being " free."  Facebook is free isn't it? Yes, you do not have to pay a fee for using that platform. But as we all should be aware, there really is no such thing as free. Someone , somewhere, somehow, is paying for that service. Facebook isn't a charitable organization, operating millions of dollars worth of servers and whatever else is required to support this platform for free. So, doesn't that then make it fall under the category of caveat emptor? Buyer beware. This should always be remembered in every transaction. That principle is that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality of the product. It doesn't apply to just monetary transactions though, that isn't the true meaning. It applies to everything! Even when the product is "free" we are responsible for accepting that product. When the product disappoints you have no one to blame but yourself! And that, that is the point where litigation begins my friends, that's where the attorneys' enter the picture. Sure that is what was said, but that isn't what it meant. Don't blame me, you bought it.