Forbes: Capitalists Need To Learn How To Use Words

This is one of the most important columns you may ever see. Read every last word. It is good to see the message I have preached for years get some backup – Editor.

“When government surveillance and intimidation is called ‘freedom from terrorism’ or ‘liberation from crime’, freedom and liberty have become words without meanings. The rhetoric in Washington has done more to defeat liberty than all the armies and police forces in the world. This war all around us is being fought over the very meanings of words.” – Chad Dumier

Harry Binswanger at Forbes Magazine:

It’s the concepts, stupid.

A wag in my high school said “Words are the tools of the English language.”

It was supposed to be a parody of deep-sounding but vacuous pronouncements. But the joke turns out to be on him: since words *are* the tools of language, they are the tools of thought. That means you must resist unto death using the terminology of your enemy. The side that controls language controls thought.

Anti-capitalists are onto this fact. Pro-capitalists need to catch up–especially since the mainstream media are dominated by anti-capitalists, who insinuate their distorted terms into what would otherwise seem to be open debate.

Notice I said “anti-capitalists.” That’s a case in point. I did not say “progressives”–that’s how they wish to be known. But capitalism, not government dictation, is the system of progress, replacing primordial collectivism with the radical concept of individual rights, including property rights. And embracing technology not environmentalism is required of anyone who favors actual progress. The self-styled “progressives” are regressives.

“Liberal” is another word that is booby-trapped. Joe Lieberman is the last living liberal–a museum piece, really. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman, and the rest are not liberals but Leftists, if you want a shorter term than “anti-capitalists.” Today’s Leftists have nothing of substance in common with those we used to know as “liberals”–JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson.

The word “liberal” derives from “liberty.” Liberty is the last thing on the mind of today’s Leftists. They seek to stamp out not only economic freedom but freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Just make a visit to your local university. The term “liberal” should never be used for people whose driving ideology is, to use a proper term, statism.

Words matter because words stand for concepts–abstract ideas that join certain things and separate others. Your ideological enemy is your ideological enemy in part because he divides the world up differently from you. He works with different concepts, different classifications. Where you see the opposition of freedom vs. government force, he sees the opposition of “exploitation” vs. “equality.” Where you see earning vs. freeloading, he sees “luck” vs. “compassion.”

Even little, innocuous concepts are game-changers. Take “access.” Is there some national, collective problem in the fact that some people don’t have “access” to quality medical care? What if we rephrase the question to be: do some people have the right to force other people to pay for their medical care? Sounds a little different, doesn’t it? I don’t have “access” to your car, your home, and your bank account. That’s a disgrace!

Politicians know, or at least sense, the power of language. President Obama speaks of government “investment,” a term properly applied only to the private sector, not to the government’s expropriation of capital from the private sector to finance boondoggles that men’s free financial decisions would not allow.

The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department defines “monopoly” in terms of earned market-share–i.e., success in competition–which it proceeds to penalize. The term “monopoly” should be applied to coercively imposed barriers to competition, and coercion is what is wielded by the government, not by business.

You see the theme running throughout the ideological distortion of language: evading the fundamental distinction: freedom vs. force. The free market is the scene of voluntary, uncoerced cooperation. Government is the agency with the exclusive power to compel obedience by law–i.e., at gunpoint.

It’s the dollar or the gun. As a hero in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged puts it:

When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other.

There is no other choice regarding the concepts we use, either. Our concepts either recognize or obliterate the distinction between freedom and force.

Harry Binswanger is a member of the Ayn Rand Institute’s Board of Directors and has taught philosophy at Hunter College (City University of New York), The New School for Social Research, and the University of Texas, Austin. His forthcoming book is “How We Know”.

House Oversight Committee: Members of Congress Received Special Favors from Mortgage Lenders

Including the Democrat Chair of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd who was in a position to block mortgage reform legislation, either in Committee or through filibuster and so he did. Republican Senators and the Bush Administration tried repeatedly since 2001 to get such legislation passed Chris Dodd and were unable to do so.

Here’s a quote from the House Oversight Committee’s staff report on Countrywide Mortgage influence-peddling:

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Countrywide-112th-Report-7.3.12-1207-PM.pdf

“Considering the cost to taxpayers of the failure to reform the GSEs, Congress should consider legislation prohibiting companies from offering discounts and other forms of preferential treatment to Members of Congress and congressional staff. In addition to mortgage lenders like Countrywide, such legislation should cover banks, auto dealerships, jewelry stores, and any other company that offers financing to customers.To foreclose the possibility that a lender might apply a discount to a loan without their knowledge, Members of Congress and congressional staff should consider notifying all parties to complex financial transactions that they must not receive discounts due to congressional ethics rules, as Congressman Sessions did.”

Indiana Small Businessman: I have to get political with customers because Democrats will destroy my business. I am desperate.

Monica Boyer:

We went through 1000 “Say NO to Joe” Vote Richard Mourdock balloons at the Kos County fair already so I went to our local bulk candy store to get candy to pass out. When I told the guy who I was he stopped loading the candy and said, “Do you have stickers?” I was a bit confused. I said, Well, we have Mourdock and Pence stickers at our booth. He said. THATS WHAT I WANT. He then said, “I don’t have a choice.” I was confused and asked him to explain. He said, with a crack in his voice, For years, I have tried to keep my politics to myself because I want all business at this store, I don’t want to chase customers away.

He said, I don’t have a choice anymore. I am scared. I am going to lose my business, and I don’t care anymore if I turn customers away. He said, what else can I do? I am desperate. I walked away sad, angry and energized. People can feel it in the air. We are at a crossroads. They want to be on the right side of history.

46,159 had to flee Canada to get health care in 2011

Read it!
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/leaving-canada-for-medical-care-2011-ff0712.pdf

Among the consequences of poor access to health care in Canada is the reality that some Canadians will ultimately receive the care they require outside of the country. Some of these patients will have been sent out of country by the public health care system due to a lack of available resources or the fact that some procedures or equipment are not provided in their home jurisdiction. Others will have chosen to leave Canada in response to concerns about quality (Walker et al.,2009); to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death (Esmail, 2009); or simply to avoid delay.