What’s in a word?  Well, often times…everything!  In this case, understanding what ‘Capitalism‘ really is, and more importantly, where the term came from, can reveal a startling revelation: that ‘Capitalism‘ is not the same things as the free market!

Now, this is not going to be a short post, nor will it be exhaustive or easy to digest.  And, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, I can almost guarantee this post will cause you some indigestion.  However, if you will stick with me, by the time I am done, I promise you will have plenty to consider and — just maybe — sound reason to change the way you understand a great deal of the propaganda in our current culture.

Let me start by proving that ‘Capitalism’ is not the same thing as the free market.  We will look at their formal definitions shortly, but consider this:

If ‘Capitalism‘ is the same thing as the ‘free market,‘ then what is ‘crony capitalism?‘ Or ‘State capitalism?‘ or why would we need the term ‘laissez-faire capitalism?‘

[If you do not already have a firm grasp on what these terms mean, please, stop reading, click on the links and familiarize yourself with them.  it is essential you understand that you understand what all three terms have in common, as well as how they are different.]

If ‘Capitalism’ means ‘free market,’ then why do we have so many different types of ‘free?’  Seriously, it may sound trite, but ask yourself what sense it makes to say ‘corrupt freedom,’ ‘government freedom‘ and/or ‘free freedom?‘  Well, if ‘Capitalism’ is the same thing as the ‘free market,’ then that is what those terms are saying: ‘corrupt free market,’ ‘government free market’ and ‘free free market.’  So, if we would bother to pay attention to what is actually being said, we would notice that there is something not right here.  But what is it?  Well, let’s start by looking at the definition of ‘free market:’

Simple Definition of free market

This is the free market: a place where trade is governed strictly by the people doing the trading.  The government stays out of it.  Except for enforcing contracts and correcting violations thereof, the government has no role in a free market.  It merely acts as a referee.  But those who oppose liberty oppose the free market.  Now, let’s look at what ‘Capitalism’ means:

Full Definition of capitalism

Now, notice that the definition of ‘Capitalism’ allows for corporate ownership.  It also provides for means of control other than the people involved in the actual trading.  This is why the definition says ‘mainly by.‘  So let’s apply a little basic logic to this definition and see what we get.

Governments are corporations.  Capitalism allows for corporate ownership.  This gives us ‘State Capitalism.’  When the government owns the means of production, this is called Communism.  Hence, ‘State Capitalism’ is Communism by another word, and there is no free market in Communism.

Likewise, ‘Capitalism’ allows private or corporate ownership.  Corporations are creations of government.  They do not exist in the real world. If the government and those persons who own corporations fall into a corrupt arrangement with each other, you get ‘Crony Capitalism.’  This is a situation where the government allows private ownership, but retains control over the owners/corporations.  This is called Fascism, and there is no freedom under Fascism.

Now for a brief aside — for those who will argue that their corporations are private property.  Under Natural law, one cannot own the earth.  Nor can anyone claim ownership of an idea.  If you can, then I claim ownership of mathematics (to the best of my knowledge, no one has applied for a patent yet, so…).  Now, I want a $0.01 royalty every time anyone makes a mathematics calculation of any type.  If you are rational, you should immediately understand why this is absurd.  However, there are people who — instead of seeing the absurdity — will immediately seek to find a way to do just this: patent and claim ownership of mathematics!

Now, the free market does allow for the creation of ‘civil rights, ‘ among which may be the ownership of real estate and patents.  When such things are created in a way that conforms with the principles of Natural Law, they benefit the whole of society.  However, when people seek to use these artificial constructions to get around Natural Law, they corrupt society (not to mention the Social Contract).  This is what happens when corporations are allowed to be treated as both private property and a person.

By definition, a corporation is an artificial entity.  It is created by an act of law.  In a free society, the law is supposed to be a servant of the people.  Therefore, anything that is created by law remains subject to the law.  However, when it comes to Natural Rights — such as the right to personal property — this would be a contradiction.  And since Natural Law cannot contradict, we can conclude that corporations are not and cannot be private property.  They are — by definition — public creations.  So the people retain just authority over corporations.

Now, it is bad enough when a society starts to treat a public creation as the personal property of one person or even a small group of people, but when they grant the status of personhood to that creation, things get even worse.   Now we have the legal creation of slavery, only the owner is master of a person that does not actually exist.  But this does not mean there is no damage to society.  Because the owner now claims personal ownership of this imaginary person, but the imaginary person is afforded rights by the law, that owner now has a claim against the law.  If we follow that further, we will find that a claim against the law is a claim against the Social Contract and everyone subject to it.  In short, the corporate owner is functioning as an owner of society as a whole.  What follows next is a battle between those who seek to control business privately by using the government, and those who seek to control it publicly by using government to control the corporations and their owners.  There is your fight over Communism vs. Fascism.  But we have one last thing to consider.

Both the corporatist and the Statist seek to control society by controlling trade.  Therefore, bot see true freedom is their enemy.  This is why the term ‘laissez faire’ Capitalism is used as a pejorative: it is meant to make you believe there is something wrong with it.  yet, if you refer back to the definition, ‘laissez faire’ means ‘free market.’  So, in reality, they are telling you the free market is less beneficial than Communism or Fascism.  This is exactly the motivation behind Bill Gates saying his biggest mistake was in not hiring  a lobbyist early on: it is Gates admitting that, as soon as he ‘had his,’ he should have paid the government to keep others from taking a piece of the very pie he could not have created unless he had been free to innovate.

In short, Gates is what people like him claim they are trying to protect people from: an : “I got mine, now I’ll keep you from getting yours” villain.  And now?  Now Bill Gates uses the public creation of Micro Soft to fund his own personal war on humanity by pushing for the elimination of some 7 billion people!  So, tell me, why do so many people support people just like him?  Why can’t they see that he is the person he claims to be protecting them from?  Well, in part, because he and others like him have destroyed the language, and with it, the ability of average people to see things as they really are.

But then, he and all those like him also know that the majority of us are too lazy to read through a post like this, let alone educate themselves enough to determine whether or not the things I have said but not linked to are true… 😉

ADDENDUM

The logic in this post is sound.  However, as I said at the outset, it will also be difficult for many to accept.  So, lest anyone get the false impression that I am advocating for or am sympathetic toward communism or fascism (which would have to be deliberately so, in my opinion), let me state this very clearly: I advocate for the free market — period!  I am against all forms of forced control over others.  And to those who will react with anger or insult, I say: congratulations!  You have revealed your inner desire to control others!

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

Like mathematics, Language is a form of logic.  This means, like mathematics, Language is governed by a known set of rules.  In order for mathematics to work, the rules which govern it cannot change.  If 2+2 equals 4 here but 5 where you are, then we cannot be sure of the result of any equation we use.  This means we cannot be confident in anything that uses mathematics, most especially engineering.  So, if the rules governing mathematics can change, you should not cross a bridge or get on an aircraft as you cannot know they will hold up or fly.  The same is true for Language.  In order for us to have any confidence that we can make ourselves understood, or that we properly understand what others are saying to us, the rules governing our language cannot change.  Now, let’s look at one of the most fundamental rules of any language: words have specific meanings and you cannot change that meaning without making it abundantly clear to all parties that you have redefined the word!  This especially applies to the ‘gender’ issue in our society today.

NOTE: before I address the ‘gender’ issue, I need to cover a few basic principles.  Please bear with me as we go over them.

It may sound simple and obvious, but, in many parts of our society, the assertion, ‘words mean things,’ is not only frowned upon, it is rejected.  However, these people don’t actually believe it.  They know words mean things, and they show it by their own actions.  If the people who reject the idea that words have fixed meaning were to actually live by their own claims, they could not have any confidence that they will be understood by anyone else because — according to their own claims — the words they use to say words have no meaning may actually negate their claim in the mind of another person.  In other words, if they say “Words have no fixed meaning,” I might read and understand “Words have fixed meaning.”  This means the people who reject the idea that words have fixed meaning couldn’t even be sure they know what they are saying because — according to them — the words they use may change meaning as they use them. Therefore, they wouldn’t bother speaking because they would know that they couldn’t be understood — not even by themselves.  But they do not live that way.  In fact, these people use more words than most in an attempt to convince others to accept their absurdity, and that is an admission that they know they are wrong (it also signals an attempt to deceive).

The practice of using the same word to discuss different ideas is actually a mistake in logic.  This sort of mistake has its own word to describe it: ‘fallacy.’  There are many types of fallacies.  Some are so common that they have been given their own names.  The practice of changing the meaning of a word within a conversation is called ‘equivocation.’  Equivocation is a tricky fallacy, because it comes in many different forms.  In some cases, it is an accident, but, in many cases, it is intentional.  When we find someone intentionally using equivocation, that is a sign that we are dealing with someone who is trying to deceive us by tricking us.  This is what is at the heart of the ‘gender’ issue: an attempt to trick us — about many things.

Therefore, we must reject the claim that words do not have a fixed meaning.  We should also reject anyone who tells us we cannot know what the intended meaning of a word may be.  All we have to do is learn the techniques for discovering the meaning of a given word.  We start with a dictionary from the time the word was originally written, then consult the context of the overall discussion and apply the rules of logic.  When we do this to the ‘gender’ issue, we quickly discover there is a problem, and that problem points to a hidden motive/agenda.

The notion that gender is equal to sex or sexual orientation is a recent creation.  Until just a decade or two ago, gender referred to grammar, not sexual orientation:

Full Definition of gender

Before the creation of political correctness, people didn’t refer to matters of sex in terms of ‘gender.’  This is because our society was still sane.  We understood that you either had a ‘stem on the apple,’ or you didn’t.  There was no in between because nature didn’t make us that way.  But today,  Face Book has ‘identified’ 51 types of ‘gender!‘

This is a clear indication that the people pushing the use of ‘gender’ in terms of sex/sexual orientation are pursuing a hidden agenda.  It is not the purpose of this post to determine that agenda, only to prove that this is the case.  And we can know that this is the case by simply looking at the meaning of words.  The people pushing this hidden agenda have purposely confused the language by using the grammar term, ‘gender,’ to discuss matters of sex.  This is because they know that, if they used the language properly, we would be stuck with stem/no stem — period.  One cannot ‘create’ 51 types from the choice of ‘stem/no stem.’  Therefore, they had to create a word they could use to make people think they are talking about something as simple as ‘who do we love,’ when — in reality — they are pushing a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with sex/sexual orientation.

OK, now, don’t get me wrong.  If you are or know someone who is homosexual, understand that you do not need gender to discuss your preference.  You are still either male or female.  Introducing ‘gender’ into the discussion will not change your biology.  Even an operation cannot do that.  Your still going to have either XX or XY chromosomes.  Likewise, ‘gender’ has nothing to do with sexual orientation.  You are either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual/asexual.  But, in any of the four possibilities, orientation is a preference, not a matter of sex (stem/no stem).  All the introduction of the word ‘gender’ does is confuse the equation by making things appear to be something they are not.  But that is the point.  If the situation were discussed using the correct words, everyone would quickly understand that there is a hidden agenda here, and it has nothing to do with stem/no stem or ‘who do you love?‘

All of this is a simple matter of logic, not ‘opinion.’  One might try to object, but they would be arguing that 2+2=5.  That only works on people who have renounced the use of reason.  Therefore, the insertion of the term ‘gender’ into what is actually a matter of sex/orientation indicates an attempt to intentionally deceive people.  I’ll leave you to decide the ‘who,’ ‘what’ and ‘why’ behind that.  The purpose of this post was just to explain that we are truly dealing with a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with the issue that is claimed.

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]

The rule of law is based on a strict adherence to a set of known laws, the purpose of which is usually explained by those who created the law.  A central tenant of the rule of law is that the law applies equally to all people, and that no one is to be above the law.  In short: people are to be governed by the law, not the other way around.  However, in America today, the rule of law is dead.  Today, we live under the rule of men, and that means that ;the law’ is whatever they say it is on any given day, or worse, according to who you are and to what group(s) you belong at any given time.  If you doubt this, I would draw your attention to this story:

Chelsea Clinton: With Scalia Gone, Gun Control an Opportunity on Supreme Court

OK, let’s apply a little logic to this story to see what it really tells us.

First, the inference here is that the Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional.  This is not true!  The Constitution (and the men who wrote it) states that the three branches of government are equal.  This means they are equal in their authority to determine what is and is not Constitutional.

Second, this story also infers that the Supreme Court can write law by simply making a ruling or decree contrary to everything that has come before.  Once again, when we look to the understanding of the men who wrote it, the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual, and it applies to all weapons — not just firearms.  That this is true is recorded in the Congressional record and available to anyone who would bother to look into this issue.  This is the understanding that has been upheld by every ruling for more than 240 years.  So, to imply that the Supreme Court can now reverse this with a simple ruling is an admission that the Supreme Court is no longer operating within its proper authority.  It is rogue, and outside its proper role, which makes it lawless.

The Supreme Court cannot make law.  If it hands down a ruling that has this effect, that ruling is lawless.  Under the rule of law, lawless acts are not and can never be or carry the weight of law.  So to suggest that an individual right can be removed by a majority vote of the Supreme Court is an admission that the Supreme Court is no longer legitimate.  It has ceased to act as a judicial body and become a political organ that operate by the rule of ‘might-makes-right,’ the power of which falls to the majority political faction on the court.  And that, dear reader, is — by definition — the rule of man!

The Constitution outlines the procedure for changing it.  If you wish to change the Constitution, you must amend it, either through the Congressional or State Convention process. The Supreme Court is charged with upholding the the original intention of our laws according to the outline of the original intention of Constitution.  These intentions are knowable.  This is why we keep records.  So, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, we can look to what the founders were trying to do by looking to the records of the debate over its wording.  We can hold this against the actual wording.  Then we look at the way the founders actually lived the wording.  When we do this, we see that they intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply to the individual, and to any means of war.  We know this because they allowed private citizens to own cannons and even armed ships of war!  Therefore, the only ruling the Supreme Court can make is to uphold the 2nd Amendment in this context — period!  Anything less is lawlessness, and lawlessness is the rule of men, not the law.

Now, please understand that this story tells us one more thing.  Anyone who agrees with and/or supports the agenda in this story is an enemy of individual rights and liberty, but also of the nation.  This is because this story advocates subversion, and subversion is right next to treason on the list of high crimes against one’s country.

[NOTE: I no longer think of my voice as anything special.  There was a time when I believed I had something important to say, but not so much these days.  I write now because I feel driven to do so.  Something inside me will not let me rest until I post the pages you just read.  I’d just as soon not bother anymore.  It all seems like no one is listening and I do more harm than good.  So I have come to trust that whatever it is driving me has all this under control.  Personally, I believe it is God, but others may not.  All I ask is that, if anything I write helps you, or you think it might help others in any way, please, share this page.  Re-blog it, share it on FB or send the link to your friends.  So long as you feel it will do more good than harm, then please, use this page however you wish.  Thank you.]