So if the owner of this page censors you, he works for the government? Or is contracted?
No, that isn't how it works.
I do not know if the owner of 24hrcf is under contract with the gov't.
But ALL the US tech oligarchs are gov't contractors. As are all the US financial institutions. And almost EVERY large US corporation, these days. And ANY US corporation exists as an entity due to legal framework instituted by gov't and is thus a creature of gov't.
The line between US gov't and US corporations has blurred to the point of non-existence. The largest corporations are mere tools of gov't policy and gov't policy is determined by the plutocratic oligarchy that is formed by these corporate oligarchs.
Let me try to sort through what you've typed. It doesn't appear English is your first language.
Adam Smith's writings call for the "invisible hand of the market" to regulate commerce rather than government. If there is a void in the market, such as lack of sellers, that the potential for profit will cause new entries into the market.
You'll have a very, very hard time making the case that Adam Smith is for either forcing existing media to provide you with a platform for which you can say whatever you wish. Private companies are of no obligation to provide you with an audience. Furthermore, you'll have a hard time convincing the world that Adam Smith would believe that the vast number of websites and media groups is a "monopoly". In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anti-trust legislation to advocated anywhere in "The Wealth of Nations".
Fones R Phun to rite on.
In any case...
You have not read
Wealth of Nations. Or did not understand it, Otto.
https://youtu.be/2j3adcbEwSM?t=53It has literally been decades since I read Smith (WoN, ToMS) but what struck me back then was the difference between what people THINK he wrote and what Smith ACTUALLY wrote.
1. WoN is flush with examples of salutary gov't intervention in the economy.
Smith distinguishes between salutary and destructive gov't intervention, but he is not against gov't intervention in the economy. See, Smith wasn't a LOLbertarian sperg, he had other interests and did not take the view that humans were mere cogs in an economic machine as do disgusting marxists and libertarians and other market-cultists.
2. Invisible Hand refers to a merchant's/capitalists general inclination to support domestic industry, not the global market, and that actors in the market have motivations other than economic. The first proposition is dated, as the captains of industry care not a whit for domestic well-being. The latter proposition still pertains.
3. Smith supported gov't interventions that allowed for trade, such as the roads of his time. The internet and websites rely on a backbone developed and built out and enabled by gov't. Also Smith was AGAINST gov't-enabled monopolies and warned of monopolies that are granted and/or developed. Last, some misunderstand what Smith refers to as a monopoly. Sometimes a "monopoly" to Smith is the monopoly enjoyed by all the domestic merchants to the domestic market where foreign goods are excluded. Context matters.
BTW, only reference to "invisible hand" in WoN quoted below. Context is the domestic merchant.
But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
