Language is important. If we stray too far from using language properly, we will lose our ability to communicate effectively. The Politically Correct movement, which thankfully seems to be gasping for its last breath of over-sensitized air, has taught us this over the course of the past few years.
There are several words used in the sphere of politics today that disrespect the English language and cause us to refer to concepts and actions inaccurately. I think it’s about time we call these words out, and start to change the way we speak.
Though I’m certainly far from the first person to make this point, the following are a few of the words I recommend we cease from using fallaciously.
I am a Liberal, and I am right to say so. But if you say those first four words from time to time, you are likely mistaken.
There are several definitions for the word Liberal. Many make no sense. The three that are logical go something like “not bound in an objective manner; open to interpretation”, “broad and unfocused”, and “supportive of individual freedom”. The first refers to eating fish and eggs while calling yourself a vegetarian or reading the Second Amendment as some sort of a permit for hunting. The second describes my undergraduate program in the arts and sciences. And the last refers to what “Liberals” fervently oppose.
When talking about political theories, we can discard the initial definition as it is an adjective meant to modify an action (i.e.-liberal interpretation), and not a belief a person holds or a person himself. We can also do away with the second definition as it specifically refers to a method of acquiring an education (and an often expensive and impractical one at that). The third definition proves that “Liberals” are not Liberal.
Classical Liberalism (or simply Liberalism) is the belief that individual men should be free. There are no qualifiers such as socially or economically, and there are no conditions such as unless you are a white male or depending on how much money you have. If you are a Liberal, you must support man’s right to govern himself (or perhaps his family). A Liberal abstains from imposing his personal beliefs and morals unto others. This is why no Liberal can support drug prohibition, institutionalized marriage, impediments to religious beliefs and practices, limitations on free speech (particularly offensive speech), restrictions on prostitution, nor a host of others. In an economic sense, a Liberal cannot support minimum wage laws, government-run education, Socialized industry (like healthcare), inheritance taxes, nor affirmative action programs.
Why, then, do we allow today’s “Liberals” to describe themselves using this term?
I propose that, from now on, Libertarians and the like should reclaim the word Liberal for themselves. There is no freedom without the right to own private property and exchange it voluntarily, so “Liberals” are not Liberal at all.
Once Libertarians have reclaimed their rightful title, we can begin to call “Liberals” what they truly are: Leftist Authoritarians.
I shouldn’t be too insistent with this one because I’d have to change the name of my blog.
I’m living a Progressive lifestyle. I am working hard, furthering my education, planning ahead, setting goals for myself, and trying to enhance my personal development in as many ways as possible. It’s not easy, and it’s not always fun, but I am making progress. I understand that I can’t earn everything I want at once, and that I can’t earn anything without making a concerted effort. This is perfectly in line with the basic definition of Progressive which goes “happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step”. There are no free lunches in this world, but I can strive closer to the picnic baskets I yearn for a little bit each day.
To call a “Progressive” Progressive is to defecate on the English language. Think of the ransom demanded by “Progressive” presidential candidate Bernie Sanders:
- Debt-free education
- Single-payer healthcare
- Equal pay for equal work
- $15 minimum wage
- Reversal of Climate Change
- Higher taxes to redistribute wealth
These policies are not Progressive. These policies correspond with the 21st Century, high-speed-wifi-ist, Netflix-ist desire for instant gratification.
Instead of progressively improving their lot in life in order to make sure their children start better off than they did, as essentially all of our ancestors have done throughout our species’ history, the “Progressives” want other people’s money, other people’s services, restrictions on practices they disagree with, and a carefree life the moment their messiah is sworn into office without putting any skin in the game themselves. Keep in mind that nearly half of Americans pay nothing in income taxes.
These intentions fly in the face of the contemporary state of humanity in which crime is progressively declining, wealth is progressively improving, poverty is progressively vanishing, diseases are progressively being cured, hunger is progressively being satisfied, and technology is progressively becoming more advanced.
We need to reclaim the word Progressive as a modifier to describe goal-orientated, non-YOLO individuals who want to improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the lives of the people around them through hard work and sound decision making over time. As for a new word to describe “Progressives”? How about Immediatarians?
To be Free is to be unforced. To be Free is to be permitted to make choices, both good and bad. To be Free is to be allowed to suffer the consequences of your actions. To be Free is to believe what you wish to believe, and to say what you wish to say.
While opponents of Freedom may retort by claiming that Freedom gives us the right to kill and steal from each other, it would be hypocritical to claim Freedom for yourself while failing to acknowledge the Freedom of others. Impeding upon the Freedoms of other individuals results in the forfeiture of the impeders’ Freedom in the eyes of society. This is why we have prisons.
To many, “Free” means “given or available without charge”. While this is certainly one proper dictionary-definition of Free, it is not what our founders were talking about when they ratified our Constitution, and it is not what William Wallace cried out at the end of Braveheart.
“Free” healthcare, “Free” education, “Free” housing, “Free” food, and “Free” paychecks are not only antithetical to the spirit of America and civilized society itself, they don’t even follow the dictionary definition of Free. Who pays for the “Free” education? Do the teachers in a Socialist society teach for “Free”? Who bears the cost of “Free” housing and food? Does no one give or lose something to provide “Free” welfare or “Free” medical care?
Just because the recipient of a good or a service trades nothing to acquire it does not mean it is Free. Someone has to build and maintain facilities, someone has to architect and engineer those structures, someone has to transport the necessary materials to the building site, someone has to harvest the resources needed to produce the materials, and someone has to have enough money to pay all of those people.
“Free” stuff is not only a lie, it is the obliteration of Freedom itself, and the initiation of dependency. Those among us who want everything for “Free” do not want anything to be Free. They want Slave Labor.
The dictionary definition of Equality is simple: “the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities”. While Americans took far too long to realize that slavery and Jim Crow Laws are incompatible with Equality, our country was founded on the principle that all men are created Equally. What this means is that no matter who you are, where you were born, or what you currently possess, the laws of the United States Constitution and our self-evident, God-given rights apply and exist in the same way. The peasant goes to jail for murder, and so does the aristocrat.
Some have redefined Equality to mean something terribly different and disgracefully immoral. Now, many believe that hurting one to assist another is an exercise in establishing “Equality”. “Equality”, in their eyes, is not fair treatment under the law or equal rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Instead, “Equality” is an arbitrarily or democratically determined state of society in which different people are willfully and forcefully held to different standards and subject to preferential treatment.
“Equality” to some is demoralizingly forcing an ill-prepared student to attend and flunk out of an Ivy League School because of his skin color. “Equality” is to pay workers the same amount of money for different amounts and quality of work. “Equality” is to prohibit the words of some because they hurt the feelings of others, but not the other way around. “Equality” is to insist upon obeying the demands of the majority when they suit the arbiter’s ideals, but to ignore the majority when they don’t.
Those who feel that this interpretation of Equality is accurate do not want Equality at all. They want Marxism.
Diversity is the dream of the free man. The free man wants to choose his religion, his words, his reading material, and how to spend his money, and wants as many options to choose from as possible. The free man is tolerant of Diverse views that differ from his own, and demands the right to view the world in his way and to condemn the views he disagrees with. The free man respects the rights of others to speak their minds in Diverse ways, and will defend his right to say his piece to the end of his life. The free man will read the Diverse books and magazines that strike his fancy, and will never demand the literature that offends him be banned. The free man does not wish to be told what or when to buy, and is at his happiest when a Diverse array of products and services, such as healthcare packages, school curricula, and spray deodorant, are available for him to choose from.
When a free man thinks of Diversity, he thinks of the simple definition of “a range of different things”. Diversity is not something the free man thinks of when he thinks of people’s physical characteristics. In fact, the free man avoids focusing on his fellow man’s pigmentation, or genitalia for that matter, at all.
Sadly, the meaning of Diversity has been usurped just as the previously mentioned terms have been, too. Today, many call “Diversity” a wide range of skin colors, sexual desires, reproductive organs, and other irrelevant, personal discrepancies. When appropriators of “Diversity” see a photograph with similar looking people, they see a cause for reaction when there should be nothing for them to see at all.
Diverse opinions are no longer Diverse to many today. Thoughts and ideas that they assume will hurt the feelings of the groups of people they view as inferior are not welcome in college classrooms or in many mediums of entertainment and the press. The free marketplace of ideas has been replaced with the coerced representation of individuals based on everything but, to the disappointment of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., their character.
“Diversity” is not Diversity. It’s Fetishist Objectification.