True, but that's a specious comparison, as taxation is always a forcible redistribution of wealth. No matter what you call a tax, people know it's a tax. It's very different when there are two opposing directions on an issue and you intentionally mangle language to hide your intent, or worse yet co-opt the language of the opposition to deceive.
Is it? I've heard it as a theory, but never as an actual example. I'm not aware of its ever being applied on a practical scale in modern history, and a quick google didn't turn up any obvious examples. Citations?
> Secondly, there absolutely are opposed viewpoints on the matter, and the use of euphemisms is partly responsible for the vast majority of the population not even considering alternatives.
I'm not saying that their aren't opposing viewpoints, I'm saying that the language isn't intentionally unclear to hide that. As things stand, any bill to do X is going to raise and/or reallocate taxes to fund doing X. Calling a bill "The X Bill" rather than "The bill that raises taxes to do X" isn't a euphemism, but just a practical use of language where the 'raise taxes' part is universally assumed and implied. Maybe there are better alternatives to that model, and I agree that people probably don't stop to consider such alternatives as much as they should, but there's still a fundamental difference between omitting something that is implied and being actively deceptive.
> I think that's our point of disagreement. Take e.g. the "Free Higher Education for All Act". "Free" in this context is pure Newspeak.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the relevance. I think you're right in the strictest sense, but I just fundamentally don't believe that anyone is actually deceived even when you call something "free."
> It's just that this time you happen to disagree with the policy being given the Newspeak treatment.
This is about the third time in a week that someone has accused me along the lines of "you're only saying that because you disagree - you wouldn't say that if the politics were reversed."
First of all, you don't know jack about my beliefs, so stop projecting your BS psychoanalysis on me.
Secondly, I realize we may have gotten to the point that it's unfathomable that someone can actually be making a point because of the principle of it, and not just because it happens to align with their politics, but I still like to believe it's actually possible.
Okay. I'm sorry for psychologising. I shouldn't have speculated as to your motivations.
The fact remains that you're objecting to Newspeak in one case, but not another. That looks to me like a pretty perfect example of what you're decrying: lack of political principle.
Edited to add: which, given your complaint, suggests we're operating on different assumptions and principles. Perhaps you disagree that both are examples of Newspeak? I'd be curious to know why.
All government activities are forcible. You are forced to only be allowed to buy goods meeting safety, quality and health standards; forced to be protected from crime by the police, or from house fires by the local fire service. But do you call that out and include it in the way you speak and write about them every day? I would guess not.
I believe strongly in the power of free markets, but I also believe that free trade must be fair, which requires regulation to ensure that goods or services provided meet quality standards in order to protect the public. I see net neutrality regulations as exactly that kind of standardized level of quality. Just as a water utility must provide clean potable water; an electricity provider must meet current, voltage and supply stability standards; food vendors must meet food safety standards; so ISPs should have to meet basic standards of service quality in order to serve the needs and preferences of the consumer and not their own. They should be forced to do so, absolutely.
As Adam Smith wrote: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."
