I just received a private email from a reader who seems to take issue with one of the articles appearing in our Reading Room. Here are both his letter, and my reply:
DRIVER. One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. A person actually doing driving, whether employed by owner to drive or driving his own vehicle.
This is what Black's Law Dictionary says at least since the 4th edition.
If you're citing the entirety of the definition you used on the public website featuring Black's Law Dictionary (http://thelawdictionary.org/driver/), then you are using an outdated version. 116 years outdated to be exact.
You're misinforming the people who come to your website. Please remedy this, so you don't give people false impressions.
Notmartha, do you have any word studies prepared on some of the commercial terms used to hinder free right of travel? We all know these words, such as: drive, driver, vehicle, and traffic. These, I think, would be useful inclusions within Terms of Art.Looking at the history of how words are defined in dictionaries can give the reader clues as to the actual authority behind some of the concepts they describe.
For example, Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defines marriage (in part):
Anyone who has read the Bible knows that marriage could also be defined as "legal union of one man and any number of women as husband and wife", since there are numerous such examples of polygamy found there.Marriage. Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided marriage also includes a legal union between any two people, regardless of gender, do you suppose the older definitions of marriage have no value?
I read recently about a man in Kentucky who is suing the County Clerk for not granting him license to marry his pornography-filled computer. I imagine this suit will go nowhere, for now. But as computers inevitably become smarter, and Supreme Court justices (and the public at large) become more stupid I can envision a time, perhaps in the near future, when such a suit might gain traction.
Computers are wonderful tools. They allow us to catalog massive quantities of information, and find that information almost instantly with a few keystrokes. But this information is also easily deleted or edited, which creates an opportunity for revisionists to erase our history and steal our heritage.
One of the tenets of The Lawful Path is to preserve and explore that heritage. The articles found on The Lawful Path are not intended to be the "final word" or "end of study", but should be a starting point. We hope readers will become curious and begin to study on their own, those subjects which they find of interest.
Therefore, I thank you for your letter, but I will not change the article in question. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please post your questions or comments to our forum.