When politicians state they wish to increase access to just about anything – health care, medications, education or whatever, they do not really mean “access” they mean a transfer of property from those who have earned it to those who have not. In other words, they want to take property from one person or group for the benefit of themselves and/or to buy the votes of people associated with a special interest. This is the common sleight of hand we see so often today when it comes to vernacular.
According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, the dictionary for the origin of American English and definitions of words prior to being tainted by modern distortion and political correctness, access is defined as a “[m]eans of approach; liberty to approach; implying previous obstacles.”
In order to truly understand what this meaning implies, it is appropriate to look at the words that comprise it:
Means is defined as a “method for doing or achieving something.”
Liberty of course in this context means, “freedom from restraint.”
. . . and . . .
Approach in this context is defined, of course, as “to come or go near.”
In other words, access means people are not restrained from approaching something. For example, a person of less than average intelligence possesses the freedom to approach a bear in the woods, but they are not guaranteed to survive the encounter.
When Republican and Democrat politicians speak of access today, they are not speaking in regard to a person’s right to approach something unrestrained by laws or people; they are saying that a person has a right to an outcome guaranteed by taking the property, effort, mind, and therefore the life of another. This definition goes far beyond the concept of “access” and positions itself directly into the realm of leeching; defined as “a person who clings to another for personal gain, especially without giving anything in return, and usually with the implication or effect of exhausting the other’s resources; parasite.”
So the next time a citizen hears the word “access” uttered by a politician, he or she should listen carefully. Is the politician in fact speaking about removing obstacles to approaching something, or is he or she talking about an opportunity to steal from another person to buy the votes of those who would benefit? Chances are, the politician is looking for a reason to take the property of one group for political gain, not truly creating access for those in need.
The reality is, when access is unabated it does not guarantee possession of something desired, or a favorable outcome. Remember this the next time a politician tries this linguistic jujitsu to pitch his or her latest scheme to rob others of their property in order to buy the votes of leeches.