Is It a Duck or a Cow?

I believe it was Winston Churchill who stated that the British and the Americans are two countries separated by a common language. Updating Churchill’s musings, it can be said that the capitalist and the socialist, pointedly those in Hudson, are divided by common terminology. A prime illustration of this thought can be found in some recent discussions, if you can call it that, over at www.uncommoninsight.com. I am not sure discussions is the proper term since it is nearly impossible to have such a thing when the words being applied have totally different meanings to the individuals using them. There is no discussion between a person from China who only speaks and understands Chinese who is involved in verbal exchange with a person who only speaks and understands English. This is exactly the nature of exchange between socialists and capitalists, even these definitions are muddled in socialist-speak.

There was a comment made which pointed to the fact that capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive philosophies. In socialism economic exchange and allocation of resources are controlled by the state; this includes, but not limited to, goods to be produced, wages to be paid, price of the goods, and etc. In capitalism, all economic decisions are made by the individual. It is obvious that capitalism promotes individual liberties, where socialism compromises such freedoms. Many of us, me included, are unashamed promoters of capitalism. However, you call a person who espouses the ideas of socialism a socialist; watch them run for cover by way of euphemisms. Why are they afraid to admit to what they believe? Simple, if you believe in socialism, then you do not believe in individual freedom; a position which would lead to their instant philosophical demise. The rebuttal to all this is to change the meaning of the words used. Socialism is replaced by some imaginary continuum and a socialist is one who believes in the imaginary continuum. All this giving the impression that capitalism, with its inherent derivative of individual liberties, and socialism are just one happy economic party. **

There is no greater example of this Orwellian double-speak and euphemism hide-and-seek then the language of government education; a term which drives the socialist class over the edge. Commentary, again at uncommoninsight, described the true nature of these institutions. It was noted that the teachers are licensed by the state, curriculum standards are set by the state, funding comes from taxes collected and enforced by local and state government. All aspects of government education are dictated by some level of, well, government. Comically, when a person who drinks from the holy grail of government is confronted with the reality of the institution, they denounce such descriptions as an attack on the community. Hey, if you want to call a waterfowl that waddles and quacks a cow, be my guest. It is only your ignorance on display. There was additional commentary concerning the use of the words stakeholder and owner by government educrats when describing the forced confiscation of wealth, otherwise known as taxes. It is as if the socialist are ignorant of the English language and the meaning of words, or they are creating a new world language [educrat talk for foreign language]. All the same it is like talking to a person who only speaks and understands Chinese.

As evidenced by the aforementioned discussions, the socialist logic is premised on causality. It is simply where one would interpret that if â??Xâ? is present and â??Yâ? occurs, then it is concluded that â??Xâ? caused â??Yâ?; exercising no reason or investigation as to the causes of â??Yâ? other than that â??Xâ? was present. Quite some time ago there was an excellent example of this concept on this blog. There was a discussion concerning healthcare. A local socialist made the comment that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States; therefore, government run healthcare such as in Cuba is superior to the healthcare available in the United States. Does anyone really believe that? It was immediately reasoned that such difference can be attributed to other factors which have no bearing on the quality and availability of our domestic healthcare providers. Stray statistics and causality are the depths of their analysis.

Speaking of depth, it has to be singled-out the comments of one individual who admitted that 3,000 words were past his or her attention span. The commentator expressed dismay that so many words were used to explain a complex, though bogus, idea. This person had just enough patience to count the words but not enough to comprehend the words and ideas. This individual went on to request that such explanations be melted into as few words as possible, which I would have to theorize to be less than a hundred.

With all of this said, it is apparent that discussions, if they can be called such, with those from the socialist perspective is nearly impossible. I have doubted at times the practice on this blog of excluding the comments of certain individuals. Considering words no longer have established meanings, logic goes no deeper than what can be observed, and that the reader’s attention span is akin to a five year-old; my doubts are no more. Furthermore, it must be concluded that socialist are stupid.

Additionally, The HSO’s word limit in the â??letters to the editorsâ? makes perfect sense. It reflects the depth of socialistic thought and the socialist’s attention span to comprehend.

** There is also an overriding penchant to invent words. Today a comment was made where one was described as a libertarian-capitalist.

No related posts.