Joe Rogan, Elon Musk and the “Importance” of Individual Freedom

By Daniel Schiffman ‘23
On Dec. 31, 2021, podcaster and comedian Joe Rogan featured Dr. Robert Malone, a leading anti-vaxer, on his show, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” Often equally controversial and misinformative, Malone’s beliefs on COVID were on full display with Rogan, such as when the doctor praised an untested drug for treatment of COVID-19. Comments like these angered the liberal-minded.

​

Many hold Rogan responsible for giving his guest publicity, and in response to the episode, artists like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pleaded with Spotify for “the JRE” to be removed from the service. 
This is just another episode in Rogan’s controversial history, as he has similarly been under fire for making racist comments and using the N-word. 
Rogan’s repeated scandals come from his philosophy of propagandizing individual freedoms to supersede any unethical behavior, justifying negative conduct because it is his “first amendment right.” This cavalier mindset neglects responsibility for harmful actions, simply because those actions are within the law.
In an apology video, Rogan defended himself, saying, “I do not know if [his controversial guests] are right. I’m not a doctor … I’m just a person who sits down … with people and has conversations with them.”
Rogan attempts to absolve himself of any responsibility for the damage his guests cause by claiming that he simply invites people onto his show and hears their opinions, which asserts that he has the right, as an individual, to have whatever guests he wants, no matter how misinformative or threatening they may be.
Rogan has certainly done damage in helping to spread misinformation.  As junior Isabelle Zellan said, “Rogan provided Malone with a platform to spread misleading and false information about the vaccine.” 
However, the perilous attitude he takes produces threats that loom far larger.
Elon Musk, Chief Executive Officer of Tesla, a friend of Rogan’s and recurring guest on his podcast, is a perfect example of someone who shares Rogan’s attitude. 
Musk, one of the richest men in the world, has a net worth of hundreds of billions of dollars and a dominant voice in cryptocurrency markets, along with a strong presence on Twitter. With this greater influence and power, Musk has a greater potential than Rogan for harm.
On Jan. 14, 2022, Musk announced on Twitter that Tesla would begin accepting the cryptocurrency, Dogecoin, as payment for Tesla merchandise. Dogecoin’s price immediately shot up 9%, showing Musk’s power to single-handedly affect a market with the touch of a button.
Senior Eli Berman, President of the Investment Club, said of Musk that, “He has a lot of lobbying power within the government and …has a huge Twitter following that will listen to anything he says.”
Musk undoubtedly holds massive power, but he also shares Rogan’s belief that individual freedoms must be prioritized. In fact, Musk and Rogan posted the same meme on their Twitter and Instagram accounts respectively, of a child labeled “Corporate Media” blaming Joe Rogan for a mess the child made.
But Musk’s tendencies in employing this mindset are often much worse than just retweeting a meme defending Rogan.
On Dec. 31, 2021, the same day of Rogan’s sitdown with Malone, Musk controversially exercised his freedoms when Tesla opened its newest showroom in Xinjiang, China, the center of the Chinese Communist Party’s cultural genocide campaign against the Ugyhurs, a minority religious group. The ongoing genocide includes “re-education camps,” abuse and forced labor. 
Referring to Musk’s new Xinjiang showroom, junior Boaz Fox called Musk’s, “apathy towards the Ugyhur cause … just one action in a pattern of money-minded indifference.”
Musk’s new showroom is not his only affiliation with China. He is also very popular on the Chinese social media platform Weibo, and in 2019 Tesla’s factory in Shanghai, which can employ up to 19,000 Chinese workers, opened. 
China owns the land that Musk’s factory is on and can repossess the land and factory if the Chinese government decides to fund a domestic electric vehicle company to compete with Tesla. Therefore, Musk and Tesla at large have to generate tax revenue and stay in the good graces of the Chinese government to keep their factory. This incentivizes Musk, owner of one of the most powerful corporations in the United States, to bend over backwards for the C.C.P.
Musk’s dangerous associations with China come from his attitude, same as Rogan’s, that as an individual, he can do business with whomever and wherever he wants, potentially at the expense of endangering the United States through debts to China.
Rogan and Musk are making incorrect assumptions about their individual freedoms. When an individual passes a threshold of power and influence, like both Rogan and Musk have,
they have an ethical duty to self-regulate their individual freedoms. They must balance those freedoms with a responsibility for how their far-reaching actions affect others.
It can be seriously dangerous when powerful people like Rogan and Musk cannot see past their own freedoms to the broader scope of the impact their choices make.
This issue is one of liberty vs. security. Musk and Rogan both assert that their individual liberties, in Rogan being able to post podcasts with whomever he wants, or Musk, doing business with China, come before security. However, these men are not giving up their own security for their freedom, but the safety of the public, whether it be through misinformation or obligation to a hostile government. 
This idea is not new, it is a core American question. Benjamin Franklin famously spoke on the question of liberty vs. security as early as 1755. In an often misunderstood statement, he said that “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 
Indeed, this question is at the heart of vaccine and mask debates: Does one have the freedom to not get vaccinated or not wear a mask, or does the security of others trump that freedom?
In “The Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie, a business titan himself, laid out a conscientious and principled approach to power when he said, “The man of wealth thus [becomes] the mere agent … for his poorer brethren.” 
While Carnegie was speaking in an economic context, discussing corporate dominance in the late 19th Century, his words easily apply today. Greatly impactful people have a responsibility to help care for the public. In a time where we may soon see individuals controlling the vast majority of all communication through social media and virtual reality, when ever increasing interconnectivity leads to division, and power is concentrated in massive corporations, now more than ever it rings true that those with power must prioritize the well-being of all over their own personal freedoms.  

​