"The main problem is that people fail to understand the big picture. It is imperative to understand the REAL problem so a proper solution can be devised. We sometimes start working on a solution, but we don't realize that our premise is incorrect. For example, there is no such thing as a free "State" - read the legal definition. If people believe that they can attain Freedom through government, then they might as well start counting the grains of sand at the beach - an impossible task."
That confesses the problem, that does not describe the problem accurately. The definition of any word or term is defined by the people acting in such a way as to constitute the definition of the words used to describe those actions. The word is not the thing. So a State that is strictly voluntary, or a government that is strictly voluntary, is such, when it is such, while those people make it exactly that, a strictly voluntary series of actions, and examples of how strictly voluntary such a thing can get exist, and failing to recognize the existence of strictly voluntary associations does something.
Failing to recognize the existence of strictly voluntary associations does something; what does failing to recognize the existence of strictly voluntary associations do?
Covers them up.
What does the often repeated practice of calling what criminals do anything other than calling what criminals do: CRIME?
If calling what criminals do by the term State does something, what does it do?
What does calling crime by the word State do?
Covers up crimes with FALSE words.
Is that a problem?
Is it a problem or is it just a convenient thing that everyone, criminals and victims, call crime by names other than crimes?
You could be the judge, or you could just follow the herd, and you can keep calling crimes names that help the criminals cover up the crimes, but I'm not doing that any more.
It is past time to call the criminals in office criminals.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: