The words used in public discussions shape the outcome of the debates. In political discussions, language plays an important role in conveying ideas, shaping opinions, and even determining public opinion. In the 21st century, despite the success of liberalism in increasing freedom and reducing poverty, liberal ideas remain unpopular in many parts of the world. This suggests that the issue may not be about the ideas themselves, but the way they are communicated.
Language is a powerful tool for shaping thought. But the rapid development of political debates can obscure the importance of words, and seemingly neutral words may have different meanings depending on the speaker and the audience. This diversity of interpretations makes language an important battleground for political ideologies, including liberalism.
Problematic Concepts: ‘Freedom’, ‘Democracy’ and ‘Rights’
A prime example of the linguistic problems libertarians face is the changing meaning of the word “liberty.” Early liberals like John Locke and Adam Smith viewed freedom as the absence of coercion—what Isaiah Berlin called “bad freedom.” However, proponents of ‘direct freedom,’ such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, argue that true freedom requires collective action, sometimes at the expense of individual freedom. This shift in meaning has been used by those who oppose freedom, leading to confusion about the true nature of freedom.
The concept of “democracy” has also been distorted in recent decades. Originally, democracy referred to a form of majority rule designed to protect the rights of individuals. However, collective movements have redefined democracy to justify government intervention in almost all aspects of public life, leading to terms such as “industrial democracy” (remembered by Ludwig von Mises in his book. Human Action) which means government control over private businesses. This redefinition has created confusion about what democracy should be, thereby weakening its connection to individual freedom.
Similarly, the concept of “rights” has changed from a negative definition—freedom from interference—to a positive one, where rights require the provision of goods and services by the government. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the “right to an adequate standard of living,” meaning that people have the right to housing, food, and health care provided by others. This change opposes the liberal view of rights as protections against coercion and promotes what it views as material guarantees.
Language manipulation is not a neutral process; it is often the result of deliberate efforts by political parties to impose their views on public discourse. As Hayek, Leoni, and Mises have noted, advocates have consistently twisted language to make authoritarian ideas appear compatible with libertarianism. Today, similar tactics are used to justify policies that limit individual freedom in the name of democracy or social justice.
So What Can Liberals Do?
To combat this fallacy, liberals must develop strategies to find the true meanings of key philosophical concepts and create a new language that better conveys liberal ideas. Another way is to reject the goals and ideas that have been put together by the activists, such as “social justice” or “welfare state.” These terms should be redefined in ways that highlight the mandatory nature of the policies they define. There can be no social justice, or any social states, that are not based on the violent redistribution of material wealth. But when liberals take group ideas for granted, they start debates in a negative light. They must reveal the true meanings of the words if they are to have a chance.
At the same time, liberals should work to promote good liberal ideas. The concept of freedom must be raised to see that true freedom is the absence of coercion, not the redistribution of wealth or the imposition of democracy. Liberals must also create a new, “liberal” language to make their views more accessible and persuasive to the public. Concepts such as the English language “right to work”, for example, need to enter Spanish and other languages, as they frame the discourse on workers’ rights in a way that emphasizes individual freedom and the ability to contract freely.
Changing the Language of Freedom
The current state of languages is against freedom, but this can be changed. By rejecting the pitfalls of collective language, defending old liberal definitions of key concepts, and creating new language that accurately reflects liberal ideas, liberals can level the playing field in public debate. This effort is essential not only to the survival of freedom but also to the preservation of individual freedom in the face of increasing state intervention.
The manipulation of language has long been a tool of both authoritarian regimes and interventionist administrations, and liberals must be careful to protect the meanings of terms that are central to their philosophy. In doing so, they can help ensure that the principles of freedom remain central to political discourse, even in a world where linguistic fraud is common.
Marcos Falcone is the Project Manager of Fundación Libertad and a regular contributor to Forbes Argentina. His writing has also appeared in The Washington Post, National Review, and Reason, among others. He is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Source link