While eyeballing through LewRockwell.com (street name: L Rock) I happenstanced upon an article by Brad Edmonds advocating the frequent use of neologisms, which is an old invented word that means inventing new words. I've always been in favor of performing neologistics whenever new words are needed. And they are especially needed in the libertarian milieu.

Years ago, for example, libertarians noted the lack of distinguishing features between the two major political parties. Both parties are authoritarian, with disagreements being limited to minor details such as which of our Constitutional rights ought to be violated during the current session. And with the size of government growing ever bigger no matter which party holds power, Republicans and Democrats came to be seen as merely the left and right wings of the same party.

In attempting to express this concept with a simple, single appellation, libertarians concocted such variables as Democans, Repocrats and, my personal preference, Republicrats for America's one-party political system.

I've always been fond of the word "crat," which isn't really a word at all but a suffix, most noted for its easy appendature to the posterior position of the word "bureau" to form the universally detested "bureaucrat." Hitching a ride on the end of another, otherwise perfectly good word (the bureau is where we keep our socks and undies and other intimate unmentionables), a bureaucrat is a toady appended to a government agency by his politician buddies, usually as a sop for losing an election somewhere.

From the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

-crat 2 : member of a (specified) dominant class crat>

But it's not just the grafted-on posteriors of government bureaus who arrogantly claim membership in the dominant class. That's why I've coined companion words like agencycrat, congresscrat, officialcrat, Internal Revenuecrat, civil servantcrat. The crat cognomen applies right down to the lowliest local Citycrat and Councilcrat. Even our counties are aswarm with County Commissionercrats.

I'm hoping the suffix "-crat" will someday become the word "crat" and stand on its own as a pejorative, as in "vote all the crats out of office." Thus . . .

From My-Own OffLine Dictionary:

Crat 1 : member of a (specified) government entity not authorized by the US Constitution. : synonym : leech

You'll doubtless argue, correctly, that both species of congresscrat, that being senatecrat and housecrat, have jobs legitimatised by our Constitution. I nonetheless award them the crat appendage because the majority of them, the majority of the time, act like members of the dominant leech class. It's what a person does that makes him or her a crat.

(There is, of course, a relentlessly revolving door between elective offices and the appointed bureaucracy, so that today's bureaucrat was yesterday's politician and vice-versa. Since there is no essential difference between these species of leeches, a useful designation for politician and bureaucrat is "policrat.")

But just as "crat" is a suffix that ought to be a word, "tax" is a word that ought to be a suffix. Since policrats are people (sic) who never met a tax they didn't like, their natural inclination is to slap a tax on everything. A libertarian's response, for the sake of brevity and clarity, ought to be to slap them right back with the "-tax" suffix. Government revenue derived from tobacco products would be a smoketax. See how easy that was? While recently searching for more tax targets in an effort to further fund our failing public schools (so they can continue to fail ever more spectacularly) Texas policrats considered the following (for real!) revenue raising rip-offs: taxing not yet legal video slot machines (funtax), employers' payroll (jobtax), auto repairs (MrGoodwrenchtax), newspapers and magazine subscriptions (literacytax), bottled water (Perriertax), billboard advertising (Freespeechtax).

Some words just work together so well that they deserve to be permanently conjoined. Thus, the aforementioned bureaucrats display symptoms of a mindset best described as "bureaubrain."

"Stadiumized" refers to what has happened to local populations who have been suckered into supporting boondoggles using taxpayer's money to build arenas and sports domes for multimillionaire owners and their multimillionaire players. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and his fellow moneycrats, for example, are currently trying to stadiumize Dallas County citizens.

And if you ever find that the quintessentially defining term for all this mess, "Washington, D.C.," is just too much of a mouthful, remember this handy little neologism: "Ozland."

Full disclosure: you and Brad Edmonds need to know that there's an alternative definition for neologism (for real!):

From the Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary:

2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic