[hodwik]

Has to be sarcasm.

People who actually believe that wouldn't say "politicians", they'd use some other euphemism, because they believe in some abstract trustworthy organization that's always being hampered by those damn politicians.

Statists love their euphemisms: “investment” instead of “government spending” “shared sacrifices” instead of "wealth redistribution" "government officials" instead of "un-elected bureaucrat" and lastly, "public sector" instead of "The State".

[ubernostrum]

Statists love their euphemisms

My irony detector has just exploded. Can you direct me to a completely-unregulated minarchist free-for-all market where I can buy one that merely poisons me and everyone in a hundred-mile radius? Because at least it would actually work.

[hodwik]

You have to pay extra for the poison. This is libertarian land, dude. NOTHING is free, even poison.

[jabgrabdthrow]

Nothing is free in reality, not even poison. What are you trying to say?

[ubernostrum]

The poisonous version was cheaper to make than the non-poisonous one, last I heard. So the company decided to go with poisonous ones in order to meet Q4 financial goals.

[mikeash]

Yes, of course, all of your terminology is straightforward, and the terminology preferred by those who disagree with you is "euphemisms."

[hodwik]

I didn't claim my language was "straightforward", any term we use will carry bias. That's how political language works.

"Investment" automatically biases you to think that said spending must have a net-good result. Calling it "Government spending" predisposes you to think about the price of said action.

Biased language is always annoying to the other side. When I hear the liberal euphemisms I groan as strongly as I suspect most liberals groan to my dysphemisms.

If you said libertarians love their dysphemisms I wouldn't hold it against you.