When politicians state today they wish to increase access to just about anything â€“ health care, medications, education or whatever, they do not really mean "access," they mean "transfer." In other words, they want to take from one person for the benefit of themselves and/or some special interest. This is the common sleight of hand we see so often today when it comes to vernacular. In a world where liberals are not liberal and the anarchist is person advocating for individual rights, someone must make a stand.
According to the 1828 Websterâ€™s Dictionary, the dictionary for the origin of American English words and their definition prior to being tainted by modern distortion and political correctness, access is defined as a â€œ[m]eans of approach; liberty to approachâ€
In order to truly understand what this meaning implies, it is appropriate to look at the words which comprise it:
Means is defined as â€œa method for doing or achieving something.â€
Liberty of course in this context means â€œ[f]reedom from restraintâ€
. . . and . . .
Approach in this context is defined as, of course, as â€œ[t]o come or go near.â€
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 personâ€™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 of another person. This definition goes far beyond the concept of access and positions itself directly into the realm of leeching.
So the next time a citizen hears the word â€œaccessâ€ 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 take from another person? Chances are, the politician is looking for an excuse to take the property of one group for the benefit of another.
The reality is, when access is unabated it does not guarantee possession of something desired or a favorable outcome. Remember this next time when a politician tries this linguistic jujutsu to pitch his or her latest scheme.