Changing the Terms

Surveying the political landscape at present, it is apparent that the so-called Liberals, the dictators, nincompoops, and socialists are defining the capitalist argument out of efficacy. In order that we may win this battle and preserve the Western notion of Man as an individual, we must not and cannot let the socialist claim the moral high ground through the abuse of language.

Supporters of capitalism are slandered regularly with terms such as “greedy,” “narrow private interests,” and “profiteering.” I reject these labels and their connotations. (Are capitalists really “greedy” more than anyone else, or should we see it, as was understood for millennia, as a sin which comes with our human nature?) They are hurled at us by politicians, drunkenly spending our tax money, whether it be on the banks they helped bankrupt, pet “infrastructure” projects, “education (i.e., upgrading schools that are already physically conducive to learning),” or irresponsible home mortgage borrowers. We hear there is no alternative, yet since when does a bankrupt family spend its way to prosperity?

We need to adopt words such as liberty, freedom, natural, security, vibrant, adaptive, efficient, progressive, stable, advancing, technological, social, and American.

And for their top-down, diktat laden legislation: thievery, compulsory, oppressive, tyrannical, stagnant, ossifying, morally bankrupt, futile, deceptive, authoritarian, anti-social, anti-American, unconstitutional, inefficient, feudal, fascist, and, finally, bankrupting. For good measure, throw in Machiavellian, for once the Socialist chooses his ends, all means become justifiable.

The wonderful thing about capitalism and freedom as complements is that they are brilliantly effective and absolutely defensible when compared to any other economic arrangement conceivable, both in the areas morality and productivity. Take unemployment, which is now at 7.2%. The question we must ask what system provides for the lowest overall unemployment level and this is unquestionably capitalism (unless, of course, socialism reverts back to its roots of forced servitude). Capitalism also preserves the choice of consumers and workers alike: a worker within a capitalist economy only has himself to blame for not seeking more gainful employment, while the socialist workers is tied down in government work; even if they were permitted to search for alternative employment (historically an uncertain prospect), they choose from a far smaller pool because of the government’s corralling of resources away from the private sector for its own projects.

In the area of healthcare, we must make it clear that by socializing care, costs that were originally accounted for in dollars will instead be accrued in blood, suffering, and lives. Real reforms are needed, but they are the opposite of what Dr. Barack and his RN Daschle are prescribing – we need MORE freedom, not less.

We Republicans cannot be D-Lite and expect, much less deserve, to win. We must present voters with a pro-freedom agenda, attractive across the false divisions that pollsters contrive. To accomplish this, we must stay sharp and refuse to accept the fundamental axioms upon which the elaborate socialist hoax is built. Socialism is immoral and will cost us dearly.