That is not what free speech means.
Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.
I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn't an infringement of the first amendment.
The interesting thing about the court is their power comes from our belief in their legitimacy. They don't have any repercussions if the executive and legislature completely ignores their rulings.
You make some valid points that I admit I didn't consider. The british revisionism is an interesting analogy that I certainly didn't consider when writing my comment.
Which systems are you talking about?
I was specifically comparing feudalism and subsistence farming to today's capitalism. My entire point was arguing those two ways of life have dominated the most common or 'modal human experience' throughout history*. I believe the current state of the world provides more opportunity of choice for the modal citizen than either of those situations.
*History meaning of civilization, after the agricultural revolution, NOT the hunter gatherer experience.
I don't think it's constructive (or accurate) to call my post propaganda though. If your intent was to change my mind you're starting off by taking a step backwards. If you're trying to convince other readers of your position it might be effective, but I think I would be more willing to read a long comment if didn't try to completely dismiss what it was replying to.
It's a double edged sword. If they allow this to happen, democracy crumbles under a new admin. If they do anything to deter authoritarians getting into power is technically anti-democratic too.
Either this admin undermines the belief in democracy by stopping an authoritarian administration to participate in elections or they allow the authoritarians to run and hope the electorate aren't complete idiots (in a voting system rigged towards the authoritarians via the electoral college).
In reality capitalism is one of the most authoritarian systems in history.
This statement is pretty disingenuous. First, authoritarian is a political system, not an economic one, but for the sake of argument let's call authoritarian "the lack of personal choice or opportunity". I feel like this definition captures the sentiment of the original post.
Don't get me wrong, there are many flaws with the inequalities of capitalism, but it does provide much more freedom of opportunity than feudalism and substance farming in terms of economic systems. Those two have been the staple of civilization since its inception. Personally, I would choose the system where the deck is stacked against me, rather than the system where I don't get delt a hand.
So no, I don't think capitalism ranks as one of the most authoritarian systems in history. There are many changes we can make to reduce inequality and make the world "less authoritarian" though. Might be a better to push those ideas of improvement rather than pretending that we live in the worst time in history.
This is the way.
Command statement = an action
Question statement = a status
You could get a water cooled top mount radiator for the CPU and reduce the total number of fans you're buying. The cost would probably come out close to a wash and I'd think you would run cooler.
Easy, kings side bishop red carpet promenade
It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.
I recently heard "Freedom is the availability of choice." This not only feels like the correct definition, it also includes how poverty strips freedom away by limiting choice. When we say freedom we typically mean political freedom, but I think we should adapt this definition so we can also include economic freedoms.
The argument I'm making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don't have the capacity to make chemical reactions.
An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don't want it, it's a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It's still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).
You're right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.
I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don't agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.
If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.