Those who want you to doubt that anarchy (self-ownership and individual responsibility) is the best, most moral, and ethical way to live among others are asking you to accept that theft, aggression, superstition, and slavery are better.
KentForLiberty pages
- KentForLiberty- Home
- My Products for sale
- Zero Archation Principle
- Time's Up flag
- Real Liberty
- Libertarianism
- Counterfeit "laws"
- "Taxation"
- Guns
- Drugs
- National Borders
- My views
- Political Hierarchy
- Preparations
- Privacy & ID
- Sex
- Racism
- The War on Terror
- My Books
- Videos
- Liberty Dictionary
- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
Friday, November 16, 2018
Winning isn't permitted under their rules
You have probably noticed this, but in case you haven't: you can't win.
No matter what you talk about someone will say you are using the word wrong; even that you are a fool or a tool for using the word as you do.
From freedom and liberty, to government and state, anarchist and statist, and beyond. I've found this to be the case anytime I discuss a topic which is important and controversial (along the statist/anarchist divide, especially).
Which is why I try to make sure to explain how I use a word, and why I use it the way I'm using it.
But you still can't win. Because then you'll be accused of making words mean what you want them to mean instead of what they "really" mean. Even worse is the crime of coining your own words.
But, I don't care.
You can't win... if you play by their rules.
To me, winning is living in liberty. At least as much as possible when surrounded by people who believe in, and support, aggressive institutions which insist you aren't allowed to opt out. They are the real losers, no matter what they believe about themselves.
The fact that they try to redefine "winning" so it's exclusive to them doesn't change that.
--
I'm taking tomorrow off for personal reasons.
_______________
Reminder: I could really use some help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent observation, Kent, thank you.
ReplyDeleteArchists have done very well in changing the meaning of words to suit themselves. I first noticed it in the case of "inflation", now widely seen as a price rise instead of its proper meaning, a rise in the quantity of money. The latter vanished from all dictionaries I know except the 1934 Oxford Concise, which I keep on my shelf despite its very tattered state.
I had a really old dictionary I used on occasion to look up how definitions have changed over time. It was amazing to me how definitions seem to have always changed to legitimize authoritarianism and the state.
Deletereject "their" rules.
ReplyDelete"they" are not my rule master.
i follow my rules.
"they" are free to be as wrong as they choose to be.
And they always abuse the freedom. LOL
Delete