Connect with us

Conservatism

Words mean things: They can support liberty or they can destroy it

Published

on

Words mean things They can support liberty or they can destroy it

Recent electoral victories by the authoritarian socialist left illustrate the importance of word selection.

The authoritarian socialist left and the national socialist media [but we repeat ourselves] are now gloating over their victory in Virginia, promising “swift action on a host of liberal policy proposals” on what will result in more restrictions on liberty. If that sounds contradictory, it’s because it is. Aptly illustrating why the conservation of liberty demands that we use the correct words to property frame the debate over our freedom.

The left’s exploitation of language used to be a minor issue back when information moved at the speed of the morning newspaper or the evening news. When learning of the events of the day meant sitting down to read the paper or taking the time to watch the tele at the end of the day. The news was in the form of a story set in the context of several hundred words.

These days the news cycle moves at the speed of light, with most people learning of events through a 280-character tweet or at best a headline and a few paragraphs of text. The process is virtually instantaneous with news spreading of an event-taking place in almost real-time.

Why word choice is vitally important to the conservation of liberty.

Back when the full context of an issue would be revealed in several hundred words, their selection didn’t matter as much. These days when it’s 10 –15 words each one takes on a vital importance.

This is why we’ve begun to use the word liberty in the context of leftist proposals in it’s restriction. The primary example, the use of liberty control instead of gun control. One word changes the dynamic of the debate from one about inanimate objects to that of freedom.

Ask a leftist whether they want more restrictions on inanimate objects – guns – and they will easily answer in the affirmative. It won’t be the same result if you ask them if they want more restrictions on liberty, especially their liberty.

Why we call them unalienable human rights.

We acknowledge that ‘inalienable’ is the more recent version referring to this concept. However, that is the word used in the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies, thus we shall use that term instead.

To be clear about the use of this word, consider the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word inalienable [unalienable]

“Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.”

Meaning that everyone has certain rights, they cannot ‘give away’ to the government, even if ‘convinced’ or cajoled by polling or societal pressure. This includes the rights of free speech or self-preservation.

The same holds true for human rights, simply because that is the context in the extremely efficient use of language of the previously mentioned document. Again, this goes back to how word selection is of critical importance.

It is now becoming quite infuriating that even many on the pro-liberty right still insist on using the misnomer ‘gun-rights’. An inanimate hunk of aluminium cannot have any ‘rights’, but that is the false implication of that term. Thus, we have shown the importance of proper word usage in setting the context of the debate over human rights.

Are leftists favorable to liberty?

This is an important question to those who persist falsely label leftists as liberals – including many on the pro-liberty right. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word liberal makes it clear that the words liberty and liberal have the same origins in conveying the idea of freedom:

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

Origin
Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.

With the “moderate political and social reform” being the only distinction from other conservators of liberty on the pro-liberty right. The acceleration of recent efforts by the authoritarian socialist left has shown that they have no use of liberty, as exemplified by the aforementioned quote. Please note that the Associated Press tends to ‘revise’ their stories with the above cited example from the early morning.

What began with assaults on the unalienable human right of self-defense has metastasized to the right of self-expression and due process. Hence, the answer to the question: ‘Are leftists favourable to liberty?’ Is a responding no. Despite this, many still persist in using the wrong terms.

The Bottom-line.

The recent electoral defeats of the pro-liberty right at the hands of the authoritarian socialist left should illustrate to all that the cause of liberty is still under threat. That is why it is imperative that we begin pushing back on the control tendencies of the left.

We need to meet their appeals to emotion with logic and reason. We need to convince those in the middle of our cause of conserving liberty. Finally, we need to stop using the language of the left and set the debate on higher ground of our choosing.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement


Facebook

Trending