Rhetorical genocide

Statists have managed to do one thing exceptionally well, much better than freedom fighters: public relations. Those who advocate annihilation of individual liberty have done an excellent job of convincing countless individuals that they are incapable of running their own lives, and thus need a benevolent overlord, the state, to accomplish the task for them.

The reason statists have done so well on the PR front has all to do with how they package their particular brand of state-slavery. When you boil down the rhetoric, the statist believes simply in enslaving the individual, subjecting him to the arbitrary whim of "majority rules," sacrificing him on the altar of democracy. The statist believes in forcing you - at the point of a gun - to live for everyone else, thereby sacrificing your individuality, talent and ability for the unearned, undeserved benefit of others.

Of course, few realize this, precisely because of the rhetoric itself. Statists have done such a great job of corrupting the English language that to question their Orwellian doublespeak is to invite ridicule and political reproach. Below, I've assembled some of my favorite leftist-statist terms and phrases, as well as some terms whose meanings have been completely changed by modern politics:

Fairness
Statists constantly push for "fair" legislation, especially in the realm of economics. We need to make the rich pay their "fair share" (which fairness, of course, is always in the form of more, not fewer, taxes), says the liberal. Prices should be set, by government, at a "fair" level for the consumer. The list goes on.

The word "fair" is not objective. It is purely subjective. What is fair to one man is injustice to another. But of course, the politician has in mind but one concept of fairness: his own. The politician can't get away with saying, "my way or the highway," but that is precisely what he means when he deems something fair (or unfair).

I personally believe that no taxation is fair, because taxation is inherently a violation of property rights. Therefore, any tax rate is, to me, unfair. On the opposite side, the totalitarian believes 100% taxation is fair - that the state should own everything, all property, all money, all means of production and labor. And there is every imaginable position in between (good example: the "Fair" Tax!). Who is to say whose definition should be used? Why, the politician, of course.

Let's say that politician proposes a 35% income tax rate on the rich. He calls that variation of legalized theft "fair." But why is 35% fairer than, say, 36%? Or 34%? Or 34.5732628%? It doesn't matter, because the ultimate figure, regardless, is arbitrary. It simply measures the degree to which we individuals are property of the state, and nothing more.

The only "fair" tax is no tax, because no man owes any other man a living.

Capitalism
The term "capitalism" has been especially corrupted. It is probably the greatest casualty of the rhetorical genocide employed by statists.

Let's be clear: America is NOT a capitalist country; it is a mixed-economy country. Ayn Rand properly defined "capitalism" as being inherently laissez-faire: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

Note that Rand defined capitalism as a "social" system. This is valid because Rand recognized the interdependency of rights and the economy. One cannot have a free economy if one is not free, and one cannot be free if his rights are not protected 100%.

Capitalism must be laissez-faire, because any infringement, even a minor one, conveys that man is subject (to how small a degree, it matters not) to the dictates of the state. If you're only robbed of 1% of your freedom, you are still robbed, and such suggests that you can be robbed of 5%, 10%, etc. (see above discussion on "fairness"). Once you concede that some of your rights may be destroyed, there is nothing to prevent all of them from being destroyed.

What we have in America is an unholy alliance between government and business, in the form of corporate welfare, subsidies, preferential tax treatment for corporations, privileges, and so forth. Government should neither aid nor inhibit businesses. A complete separation of economy and state would render our society capitalist. Until then, it is, as Rand eloquently put it, a mixture of freedom and controls.

Government "asking you" to do something
During the presidential primary this year, many Democratic candidates spoke of "asking" the American people to do a number of things, especially to pay more in taxes. This is statist-speak: phrasing force as request.

The government doesn't "ask" us to do anything, especially when it comes to paying taxes. If you don't believe me, try turning down that request. "Nah, I'd rather not pay taxes, but thanks for asking!" See how far that gets you.

The truth is, if you don't pay your taxes, you are arrested; and if you resist arrest, you are killed. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force!" said George Washington. A very succinct definition of the state, indeed.

Again, there is more than what meets the eye (or ear) when you hear a statist speak in terms of asking you to do something. The statist is not asking you for anything, for he will not take "no" for an answer, and could care less about your disagreement. It matters not that you can vote him out of office; someone else will merely "ask" you to pay up. What the statist really means is that you WILL do whatever he is "asking" of you, and he will see to it by initiating force to compel you to do so.

"Will of the people"
There is no such thing as a "will of the people" in America. Democracy is not so structured. Democracy means simply that a majority of people get to tell a minority of people how to live their lives. That's it. When someone proclaims "the will of the people," he means simply the will of a majority of people.

But majoritarianism (basically, democracy) is not only not a value of this country ("democracy" appears nowhere in the Constitution and our Founding Fathers ridiculed it), it is completely invalid. "Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." So said Rand when speaking of the mythical "public interest" allegedly embodied in democracy.

Democracy basically means that your rights and values are subject to a popular vote. It is mob rule, a lot of people telling a few people how to live their lives. But truth and values are not subject to a popular vote. It didn't matter that chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and Nazism were popularly supported regimes. From a democratic standpoint, they were just, because "majority wins!" But from a moral standpoint, they were violations of human rights.

"Progressive"/"Liberal"
We commonly associate these two terms with the statist. Somehow, statism, an ancient concept, is said to be "modern" and "progressive." Meanwhile, the relatively young notion that man should be free from his government is considered regressive, reactionary, and outmoded.

Equally absurd is how the word "liberal" has lost its meaning. Many libertarians identify themselves as "classical liberals" to distinguish themselves from statist liberals. Although "liberal" should mean something in the neighborhood of liberty, today it certainly does not. The liberal agenda is based almost entirely on destroying individual rights.

-----
There are many more terms and phrases, too many to identify here, which are misleading, fradulent, and corrupted. The point of all this is that it's important to always think about what someone is actually saying - cut through the pleasantries and rhetoric and get to the root of what someone really means. After all, ideas have consequences, especially when it's a politician's ideas. And odds are, whenever a politician is speaking, he already has designs on your liberty.