I would really like my readers to weigh in on something. Something that I'm not sure I'm right about.
The newspaper editor disagrees with me about the Dr. Seuss situation. His take: "... I think [the Dr. Seuss company] ha[s] been unfairly criticized. End of the day, they made marketing decisions they think will increase sales. God bless profitable America."
Thomas Knapp lumped those like me (and Claire Wolfe) who don't think this was a good move with the "deplorables".
If the company (corporation?) did this to boost profits, I hope it hurts them financially in the long run. I don't want censors to prosper, especially when they make their decisions based on "someone was/might be offended". It doesn't matter to me if they had the "legal right" to do what they did-- that's a statist notion.
I think this shows the flaw with IP generally and with copyright, specifically.
Dr. Seuss didn't make this decision about his works, someone else who was entrusted (by whom?) to manage his legacy has decided to vandalize it, instead-- in my opinion.
If they won't publish those books, I think it would be perfectly ethical for someone else to publish them-- especially if they used some of the profits to support causes Dr. Seuss would have supported. I can't imagine him supporting cancel culture, but maybe he would have-- I know he was a flawed human being.
But what do you think? Is this something they have a right to do and I am being anti-market if I object? Which side of the divide do you find yourself on?
-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Get a Time's Up flag or two