> > There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
But this is completely false. The credulousness with which it gets repeated is telling.
I agree with you regarding Musk's hypocrisy around free speech.
Oh, and if you're looking for someone who believes the law protects him but does not bind him, you might like to read the news on the current (Democratic) mayor of Chicago.
I live in Massachusetts where three straight Speakers were convicted of various crimes so I'm well aware of Democratic malfeasance. Right now Trump and his enablers are so much worse.
Musk's hypocrisy regarding "free speech" is more around him being thought of as a libertarian, but that type of hypocrisy runs deep in the Libertarian party (which has been pwnt by moneyed interests the same as the two main parties), as the attraction of freedom for me but not for thee is too strong.
> There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
> There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
> There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
> There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
> There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...