Apropos Austrian Aphorisms : government

Language: The toothpick of politics

thedo — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 14:05:00 GMT

Language in the course of politics today is like a toothpick—it is forever being used to clean the people of ugly little blemishes that would otherwise keep them from smiling. For example, take the recent buyout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What would have been before called nationalization was instead titled a conservatorship. For another example, look at the proposed $700bn 'solution' to the current 'financial crisis'. What was first, aptly, titled a bailout is now being termed a rescue plan. And we can go back further to when Ron Paul's foreign policy was denounced as isolationist when the popular energy policies of John McCain and Barack Obama is called independence.

The reason for these changes, as I said, is to keep the public a little more in the dark about certain matters. If the clean labels of conservatorship, rescue plan, and independence were replaced with their 'dirty cousins' then the public would be a little wiser, a little more hesitant about proposed policy. Despite no official language existing in the United States, it is clear one language—the government's—is far and away the number one language.

I remember a discussion in one of my linguistics classes about how language is shaped and changes. Where do new words come from? This is certainly a relevant question for a country that has no official language or Bureau of Language. The answer in the discussion was that words are introduced and spread through dictionaries, teachers, and, as Hayek would term them, intellectuals. Perhaps politics was one but I cannot remember. Yet it is clear today that the government and a lapdog media are the purveyors of the correct speech. As with anything and the government, language should be separate from government.

This is nothing new, though. As I mentioned in a previous blog post, Garet Garrett wrote about the assumption of isolationism as a pejorative when he wrote 'The Revolution Was'. And as someone said in a reply, maybe I should look into how words that were previously used, such as 'The People', are no longer used and instead replaced by supposedly better words and ideas, such as 'The Nation'. I've been thinking more and more about this, especially after just reading Ronald Hamowy's essay on Mises.org, 'Some Comments on the Rhetoric of the Environmental Movement'. The topic of language in relation to its political use is something that has always interested me about the Austrian school. Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell are just a couple of authors among many Austrians who are always good at noting political changes in words. Because I studied rhetoric in college, I'm also always curious how rhetoric itself is now a pejorative for 'empty political talk'.

So whether there's an interest in this subject, I'm going to look further into the relationship between language and government. I can already envision a book that details linguistic changes by the government for its power and benefit: a libertarian examination of the damaging effects when governmental mouths speak. I just think of H.L. Mencken's investigation of language, 'The American Language', and I think of how the chasm between British and American English somewhat developed as an American antithesis to British rule. I shall delve deeper.

I would love to read and hear any comments any of you have on this matter and if it is at all widely interesting.

Why government wants ignorance

thedo — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:11:00 GMT

By no means is finding someone to espouse the greatness of universal literacy a chore, especially among politicians. Yet for all of their pandering, these very politicians would never desire for people to be literate on one subject matter: government itself. If the public were ever clued into the innerworkings of the government, government would cease to be. What other explanation can there be for why the law is not required reading in government schools? The government wants an ignorant population.

I received a parking ticket the other day for parking against the flow of traffic in the adjacent lane. What a silly law, I thought! Let the roads be privatized and we'll see if such an absurd parking restriction would stand. It certainly doesn't in the parking lots of any business for many people often "pull through" a parking spot or back into a parking spot to park against the flow of traffic. I then asked myself, "How was I supposed to know such parking was illegal?" The only parking signs around stated only the times I could park on that side of the street. No, I, the average citizen, was expected to have taken it upon myself to read and digest every aspect of the law to know what I was and wasn't allowed to do. Such is the result in a society that does not respect property and voluntary exchange—everything is subject to the whims of the State.

Why wouldn't the government require reading of the law in its schools, just as it does of its propaganda (i.e., American history textbooks)? Surely an understanding of what you can and cannot do is just as important as an understanding of how just and right our government has been throughout history is to developing a sense of patriotism.

But to think this is to misunderstand the purpose of the State. Government can exist only so long as it has a means to provide for itself. Its only means of provision are what it receives from its populace through taxes (i.e., theft). And, as Butler Shaffer points out, government relies upon you breaking its laws for continued revenue—revenue at a level optimal for further intrusion into the lives of its citizens. If the citizens knew what the laws were they wouldn't break them so easily and ignorantly! Why, if that happened, the government would have far fewer people to incarcerate and extort for its own subsistence. The government lives by the death of others, which is why it promotes and tolerates ignorance.

The proper understanding of the State is a fundamental educational bulwark to its encroachment and growth. Instead of the government's legal texts being required reading, the only required legal reading should be Frederic Bastiat's The Law.

A question for my rhetoric class

thedo — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:48:00 GMT

My rhetoric class is now reading articles about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The topic is very intriguing, and many in class have professed a wonder about how they had never heard much about the subject growing up through their education, largely public. Hmm! Little coverage of the enslavement of a certain classification of people by the government in government schools? Shocking!

Today we are to listen to a professor from my university who, as a three-month-old child, was interned with his family. I plan to ask him the following question:

Sir, the internment of Japanese-Americans is very disturbing and an unfortunate history. I have been fascinated reading the thoughts of certain Japanese-Americans, such as Mike Masaoka, who have written on and described their experience during the time. In a piece we read for class from They Call Me Moses Masaoka, Mr. Masaoka explains the willingness of many Japanese-Americans to comply with the American government's harsh and unjust curtailment of their constitutional, natural, and inalienable rights. This willingness occurred, in part, because of the want to be seen as loyal and faithful to the American government. Many faithfully believed they would receive their property after the end of their internment, and would, in the end, be treated properly. Such was not the case. Now, in the War on Terror, we have seen many strikingly similar moves on the part of the American government to pass legislation severely curtailing the liberties of people and many unjust incarcerations of so-called enemy combatants. Yet many continue to put stock and faith in the actions of the American government that it is only doing what is safe, right, just, and proper. But history shows the exact opposite, for when a government grabs excessive power it does not relinquish it easily and satisfactorily. Many people do not believe the recurring problem resides with government itself but merely the inadequate elected to government. My question, for you, then, is: Why do people continue to blindfully believe in the just and proper exercise of government when it continually displays an egregious attitude for injustice?