having true free speech would not equate to more enforcement and a bigger government. it's the opposite. you'd only need enforcement or a bigger government if you wanted to restrict speech.
same thing with 2nd amendment. not infringing on gun rights doesn't increase government, its the infringing that increases it.
so taking that power away from paypal (which they gave to themselves) doesn't mean that power goes to the government. being in opposition to paypals move isn't an endorsement of government.
having true free speech would not equate to more enforcement and a bigger government.
So if there's no enforcement, how do you intend to prevent people from entering contracts which have terms that limit their speech?
same thing with 2nd amendment. not infringing on gun rights doesn't increase government, its the infringing that increases it.
If you propose outlawing people from voluntarily entering contracts which might limit their 2A rights, that increases government.
In both cases you are proposing the government take away a right to preserve another. It's the nanny state. "We're going to protect you from doing these things that harm your liberties."
(post is archived)