Etymology is the study of word origins. Over time, words often change
their meaning. Sometimes this is a result of natural usage in a changing
world, as in the case of the word “goodbye”, which started out as “God
Be With You” (or “with Ye”). As the farewell utterance retained its
usefulness even among people who grew less religious, the four original
words lost their utility. In other cases, as highlighted by George
Orwell in his book
1984, authorities manipulate words in order to
place new meanings on ancient and valuable texts, common sayings, or
other influential bits of language.
Deception is an instinctive tool creatures from bugs to humans use to
improve the prospects of continuing their species. Most deception in
nature happens between species, for example when a predator or prey
accomplishes its goal by providing bad signals to its enemy. Camouflage
is one good example. Human beings, however, often use deception on other
members of our own species. Though this strategy tends to wane with
age, wisdom, and maturity in most, there are certain kinds of people who
employ the strategy of deception at an increasing rate as they get
older and take on more responsibilities. This is because there is a
sharp contrast between the group they favor privately and the group they
favor publicly. Etymology is a useful tool for detecting and remedying
the damage caused by such deception.
For those who occupy positions of influence, there is always the
temptation to get people to believe things that aren’t true, or to look
at things in a warped way. For example, when George W. Bush and his
administration were pondering how best to protect the usefulness of the
national currency against growing interest in using some other medium of
exchange to trade oil, they concocted the story of “Weapons of Mass
Destruction” to justify an attack on Iraq. It also seems likely that the
destruction of the Word Trade Center Towers in 2001 was part of a
“false flag” operation designed to justify the attack. There are many
examples of such “false flag operations” throughout history. While the
majority of the world’s population suffers from the outcomes of these
deceptions, any exploration of crony capitalism, fascism, communism, or
other government structures will show that they provide great benefits
to those who are in power and to their friends and business associates.
Often, it isn’t clear whether a word’s changing meaning over time
results from the intentions of authorities or from its natural course of
usage among people. Indeed, such shifts in meaning are most often a
result of the combination of these two factors. The very word
“authority” is a great example. It starts with the telling word,
“author”. These first six characters suggest that someone is creating a
story, perhaps based on truth, or perhaps a complete fabrication;
perhaps intentionally deceptive, or perhaps fiction intended for
entertainment. In all cases, the audience of such an author chooses
whether or not to pay attention to the story, and how much of it to
believe.
In order for an author to become an authority, the audience must find
value in the story, feel a growing respect for the wisdom of the
author, and ultimately rely on the author for information, knowledge,
and wisdom in some specific domain. I am tempted to call this
“respect-based authority”, but this is misleading. Authority is always
and necessarily respect-based, and the “authorities” know this and
struggle with it. Examine the material provided to schoolchildren about
“the authorities”. Rather than presenting the claims and writings of
these power players so that the students can come to their own
conclusions, the material starts with the conclusions desired by the
authorities. History textbooks, the novels students read for English
class, and even math textbooks are filled with examples insinuating and
insisting that “the authorities” are wise and should be respected.
Really, however, they are tyrants.
In “The Social Contract”, Rousseau writes “In the exact sense, a
tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority
without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word
‘tyrant’: they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose
authority was not legitimate.” It is unclear from the English
translation I have how he means the word “legitimate”. Etymologically,
“legitimate” comes from the Latin word for writing, but more
specifically, the writing of law. This leads down a wonderful path our
readers can explore on their own, along which they will meet Hammurabi,
often cited as the first guy who wrote down the rules he would be
enforcing. The modern meaning of “legitimate” does not require an
author, but assumes that the real world is the measuring stick for
legitimacy. For example, a “legitimate” argument cannot contain a
logical error because such an error delegitimizes the argument. No
author can legislate logic out of existence. A tyrant can, however, and
that is the point here.
Authorities are valuable people who earn respect by knowing their
subjects and providing help and advice to those who rely on them for the
knowledge they hold. Tyrants the world over crave such respect and do
everything in their power to enjoy its benefits. The essence of their
tyranny, however, is not any written law or lack thereof, but the lack
of the more modern kind of legitimacy: reasonable justification. When
reason paints the tyrant as a tyrant, his true nature emerges through
his reliance on coercion and violence. In his “Essay on the Trial By
Jury”, Lysander Spooner points out (and extensively defends) the fact
that it is jurors’ “primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice
of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion,
unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or
resisting the execution of, such laws.”
Another example of etymology that is highly germane (at least in the
United States of America) in the area of applying etymology to the
ailments of the world is the word “income”. Peter E. Hendrickson has
written a wonderful website page explaining how this term has been
abused
outside of the law, while its meaning inside the law (from
1916) retains all manner of usefulness for those citizens of the USA
who wish to understand the US Internal Revenue Code and avoid paying
unnecessary taxes. His essay explains that the word at that time
described
passive income, and that it is now unofficially abused
by tyrants (whom most would call “authorities”) to deceptively maximize
tax revenue. His essay is available at
http://losthorizons.com/Documents/AllEconomicActivityIsNotIncome.htm.
With this in mind, this author urges you to help other people
understand the difference between authority and tyranny, and to point
out that an authority that relies on its brute force is not an
authority, but rather a tyrant, incapable of relying exclusively on
reason, as all genuine authorities must. To put it in a simpler light,
if you are “writing your own story” and someone threatens you into
changing it (perhaps with a “You may not grow/sell/transport that kind
of plant/milk/chemical/monetary instrument/light bulb” or other such
law), recognize that you are being controlled not by authority, but by
tyranny, and complain loudly. This world needs a lot more voices
complaining of the tyrannies under which it suffers.
