Their Proper Name
Eric Peters Autos
December 6th, 2012
Reader Views: 598
Ask any lawyer about the importance of being precise â orÂ evasiveÂ â with language. Alexander Hamilton and his federal supremacists understood. So did railroad lawyer and slave-not-freer Abe Lincoln. (For those who didnât know, Abe only âfreedâ slaves he had no power to liberate â in the Confederate States. Slaves under his control â including slaves held by his chief warlord U.S. Grant, remained most un-free for the duration of the war.) Bill Clinton was a masterful practitioner of the Art of Word (I did not haveÂ sexÂ with that womanâŠ). Which, by certain Talmudic parsings, he didnât. NotÂ exactly. Wiggle room, you see. Of a piece with Hamiltonâs brilliant flim-flam about the âgeneral welfare.â
That is how it isÂ done.
To undo it, there must be a rebirth of what they called in cowboy flicks, straight-talking. Calls things by their proper name â and challenge those who donât or wonât. Make them say what they mean â openly. If you fail to do so, youâve accepted their terms.
Which means, theyâve already won. Ask anyÂ progressive.
Or just wait. Heâll soon be âaskingâ you to âhelp.â
Most people are innocent victims of verbal (and written) rights-rape. For example,Â publicÂ schools. Well, no â theyâre not. Yes, they are âopenâ to the public â in the sense that the public is forced at gunpoint to send its children to them. Which gives us a clue as to the proper name that ought to be used in every instance of discussion:Â GovernmentÂ schools. It is what they are, in plain, direct â and thus,Â honestÂ â language. Nothing less. Which of course is why honest language is not generally used to describe them. Because that might get people thinking along certainÂ lines. âPublicâ sounds so muchâŠ friendlier.Â Free, almost â a vicious irony if ever there was. Youâre not free to decline to pay for them (even if you donât use them). And most kids are certainly not free to not attend them. Very much what youâd expect of aÂ governmentÂ school. Because the essential attribute of government is coercion â force. The thing that must never be openly stated â but alwaysÂ euphemized.
Like, for instance, âconsent of the governed.â
Abe â The Great Effronterer â spoke eloquently of it while prosecuting a war of extermination to achieve its opposite. The southern states had withdrawn their consent to be governed by Abe â who was elected by a minority of the voters, the majority of whom voted for someone else. The Southern states sought to govern themselves instead. And for this, they were hounded by armies of invasion and conquest as merciless as the legions of the Waffen SS, their cities laid waste, their women and children killed, the civilian populace deliberately starved out.
Of the people, by the people, for the peopleâŠ
Well,Â someÂ people.
The rest had better shut up â and do as they are told.
HasÂ anythingÂ done to you by the state been done withÂ yourconsent? As opposed to linguistic-legalistic skullduggery such as âimpliedâ consent? (The perfidious doctrine that youâve âconsentedâ to random stops and searches by dint of operating a motor vehicle, or because youâre entering a government buildingâŠ which youâre only entering because you have no choice.)
If things are done to you without so much as a by-your-leave, then say so. Loudly. It probably wonât prevent the thing from being done, but by removing the veneer of moral sanction â by calling it what it is â you may help assure that in the future, things areÂ notÂ done to people without their literal, specific consent.
Speaking of which:
TaxationÂ without representationÂ is tyranny.
No,Â Â taxationÂ is tyranny â period. It is not a question of âessential servicesâ (that must be funded â according to some â and necessarily at gunpoint). Rather, it is a question of: Can it ever be morally permissible toÂ steal? For that is what they who speak of âessential servicesâ (as defined by them) intend but never dare state openly. âTaxationâ somehow sounds more legitimate â perhaps by dint of repetition (and the general failure to investigate further). It impliesÂ processÂ â which in turn seems somehow moreproperÂ than just shoving a gun in someoneâs belly and croaking,Â your money â or your life. But are they not the same things? Am I less the victim of a theft if my property is taken from me against my will by an assembly as opposed to an individual? Does it matter, to the victim, whether the funds extracted from him go to fund the next drinking bout of the lout who stuck the gun in his belly â or for the âessential servicesâ heâd otherwise not have elected to purchase?
Can taxation âÂ theftÂ â becomeÂ not-theft because a proxy (a ârepresentativeâ) has voted yay â or neigh? Perhaps in a world wherein a word means exactly exactly what Humpty Dumpty says â and neither more nor less. Alice provides the appropriate rejoinder:Â âThe question is,â said Alice, âwhether you can make words mean so many different things.âÂ âTheÂ question is,â said Humpty Dumpty, âwhich is to be masterÂ Â â Â thatâs all.â
Throw it in the Woods?
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Eric Peters of Eric Peters Autos.
Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author who has written for theÂ Detroit NewsÂ andÂ Free Press,Â Investors Business Daily,Â The American Spectator,Â National Review, TheÂ Chicago TribuneÂ andÂ Wall Street Journal.Â His books includeÂ Road HogsÂ (2011) andÂ Â Automotive AtrocitiesÂ (2004). His next book,Â âThe Politics of Driving,âÂ is scheduled for release in 2012. Visit his web site atÂ Eric Peters Autos.
Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
Leave A Comment...
The Daily Sheeple Home Page