> I think the argument is generally: nobody has a right to drive a car, it's something we permit by issuing a license and other regulations. One of the conditions is that the owner of a vehicle is ultimately responsible for it.

Do you know you can be licensed to drive a vehicle without owning one, and similarly, own one without being licensed to drive it?

Why would the owner of the property be responsible for someone else's actions with that property?

There's been a slow shift here over the past decade, from

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

to

"If you don't agree with what I think a nanny state should be doing you're a terrible person"

What I wonder is if this is brought on by a demographic shift or a viewpoint shift among the same demographic.

How do you mean? Is there programming inside the game (ala Minecraft or Factorio)?

> "I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new."

This isn't true, and there's no need to flame and be disingenuous.

> The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.

Maybe you can provide evidence instead of restating the same claim that sibling comments to mine have made?

I've already admitted that it wasn't invented by Hegseth. My claim is that he is popularizing it. In fact, your comment further down agrees with this:

> It really isn't—it's all perception. Hegseth has a much more outgoing and public persona so it's more visible. Heck, can you even name the last 5 Secretaries that preceded him? I can't.

As you say, he has a much more public persona - as does his jingoistic rhetoric.

It's a Hegseth malapropism, which is why it's slightly disturbing that Dario continues to use it.

edit: To be clear, Hegseth didn't create it, merely has popularized its use recently. Eg his speech at Quantico last Sept