Their Proper Name
Eric Peters Autos
December 6th, 2012
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 didnâ€™t know, Abe only â€śfreedâ€ť 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 womanâ€¦). Which, by certain Talmudic parsings, he didnâ€™t. NotÂ exactly. Wiggle room, you see. Of a piece with Hamiltonâ€™s brilliant flim-flam about the â€śgeneral welfare.â€ť
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 donâ€™t or wonâ€™t. Make them say what they mean â€“ openly. If you fail to do so, youâ€™ve accepted their terms.
Which means, theyâ€™ve already won. Ask anyÂ progressive.
Or just wait. Heâ€™ll soon be â€śaskingâ€ť you to â€śhelp.â€ť
Most people are innocent victims of verbal (and written) rights-rape. For example,Â publicÂ schools. Well, no â€“ theyâ€™re not. Yes, they are â€śopenâ€ť 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. â€śPublicâ€ť sounds so muchâ€¦ friendlier.Â Free, almost â€“ a vicious irony if ever there was. Youâ€™re not free to decline to pay for them (even if you donâ€™t use them). And most kids are certainly not free to not attend them. Very much what youâ€™d 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, â€śconsent of the governed.â€ť
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 The southern states had withdrawn their consent to be governed by Abe â€“ who was elected by a minority of the voters, the majority of whom voted for someone else.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 peopleâ€¦
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 â€śimpliedâ€ť consent? (The perfidious doctrine that youâ€™ve â€śconsentedâ€ť to random stops and searches by dint of operating a motor vehicle, or because youâ€™re entering a government buildingâ€¦ which youâ€™re 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 wonâ€™t 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 â€śessential servicesâ€ť (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 â€śessential servicesâ€ť (as defined by them) intend but never dare state openly. â€śTaxationâ€ť 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 someoneâ€™s 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 â€śessential servicesâ€ť heâ€™d otherwise not have elected to purchase?
Can taxation â€“Â theftÂ â€“ becomeÂ not-theft because a proxy (a â€śrepresentativeâ€ť) 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 â€śThe question is,â€ť said Alice, â€śwhether you can make words mean so many different things.â€ťÂ â€śTheÂ question is,â€ť said Humpty Dumpty, â€śwhich is to be masterÂ Â â€“ Â thatâ€™s all.â€ť
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 â€śThe Politics of Driving,â€ťÂ 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