Reader Question: What’s “Reasonable”?

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!

Carol asks: What’s “reasonable”?

We are expected to accept a nanny state definition of reasonable when the Constitution uses “reasonable” in a completely different manner. The Fourth Amendment use of “reasonable” includes the legally observed actions that create a reason for contact with law enforcement. The logic that justifies their reason for illegally intruding on the lives of the people would also work to deny the right to travel at all, and have government sanctioned people deliver food to everyone, for their safety. They have a reason. But that doesn’t mean it’s legally reasonable.

My reply: Well-said; exactly so. The manipulation of meaning is of a piece with the manipulation of the Second Amendment’s use of “regulated” to justify government debarring ordinary citizens – but not the government – from possessing firearms (“gun control”).

Control language and you control everything. Get people to accept a definition and they have already accepted your argument.

This is why it is so critically important to be precise with language – and to deconstruct manipulative language.

Thus, we do not “contribute” to Social Security; we are forced to hand over money which will be given over to people we don’t even know and who somehow have acquired the legal power to force use to finance their retirement.

We are not “customers” of the insurance mafia. A customer is free to say no to proffered services without being punished for declining them.

There is no such thing as “implied” consent. You either gave your consent – or you did not.

Und so weiter…

…