"There is, indeed, a very close analogy between words and coins, both quintessentially human creations. A word, when fresh-minted, has the objectivity and innocence of a legal penny. Handled by men, it is soon subjected to the process of inflation or deflation, and acquires moral or immoral characteristics."
--Paul Johnson, Enemies of Society, 1977

Very interesting quotation. Johnson is certainly right that coins and words are similar. The moral and immoral dimension is there from the get-go, however, because you must be just and truthful to others with money and with words in order for the system as a whole to work. And once people start misusing them, it is not only the individual you are defrauding who suffers, but everyone in the system now must use the words/coins which you have, as he says, inflated or deflated (i.e., changed the value/meaning of).

So when we use words irresponsibly, we undermine people's ability to express themselves responsibly. Think of political rhetoric. Overblown threats and name-calling.

And when we misuse money, or when the government screws with its scarcity, we undermine people's ability to work and trade responsibly.

Money itself does not acquire moral or immoral characteristics. An object can be neither moral or immoral. However, the owner of the money can.

Seems like a potentially fruitful quote, but what is he talking about a freshly minted word? Does he mean when a word is first made up? and if he is, when does this happen? I've never seen it.

Also I don't understand what makes a freshly minted penny innocent. A freshly minted penny is already a representation of something (a fraction of a nations capital?) and seems already to be at least a political entity. Maybe someone can explain the fresh minted word, or the innocent penny, as Johnson sees it.

Still I like the an@logy at least along the lines of the linguistic nature of money.

Skeptic and R.C. bring up good points. While words are certainly our conventions, or inventions, and as such subject to our creative forces, this does not mean that they are utterly subjective things. All of our words derive from/point to/exist because of the reality which is meaningful or useful for us to reference. (I would think that that "objective" nature Johnson refers to has something to do with this.) Indeed, words presume and require commonality, community among humans. They are for the sake of COMMUNication. This is why it is important and necessary that we spell and pronounce them according to established standards (pace at least one earlier post I've read on FF, wherein the rules of spelling [and grammar] were disparaged as BS), and perhaps why so many feathers are ruffled by those who seem consitutionally incapable of making it through a sentence without a spelling or grammatical error.

Johnson makes a good ana-logy, but maybe a finer point is worthy. Perhaps some words are like pennies, others nickels or dimes, and others dollar coins, etc. For example, in current discussions, the word "marriage" seems to be weightier than many others. As words are pegged to realities, which differ in degree of significance, so too words differ in degree of significance.

Ken -- money are words are not "just objects", they are what they are because they are identified with the meaning we give them and function we put them to. Because they can be defined only with reference to human thought and action, they are morally imbued from the get go.