But they are not intrinsic to the words or to language. We choose what the meanings are, and they are subject to change and interpretation, and we know they change naturally through time as languages evolve and interact. Like economics, language (and words) are a result of human activity and solely a product of historical circumstances. The 'definition' of a word is fluid, just like its spelling.

You must feel that I have hijacked the meaning of 'slave' in order to justify my own prejudices and misconceptions; OK, I plead guilty. But can't you see you have done the exact same thing in order to preserve your own definitions by appealing to the authority of a dictionary entry? Dictionaries are written by people too, and they are subject to bias, error, custom and historical circumstances.

Our old friend TB used to play the dictionary game too, attacking his opponents' arguments by finding a word in that argument used in a way that did not fit into his own preconceptions. He relied on the authority of a dictionary definition of a single word to discredit an entire reasoned argument.

You have chosen a limited definition of the word "slave" in order to overturn my arguments. I use a more open definition, one which solely relies on the slave having to produce wealth for another without his full participation or acquiescence or agreement. And in today's psychological and propaganda-molded environment, often without even his knowledge. You cannot say its not slavery simply because it fails to meet your checklist of requirements. I have my own checklist. A wage slave is still a slave, perhaps not as brutally painful and potentially deadly as a Biblical or Roman or Confederate slave, but he is still being exploited for another's benefit by someone who has the economic, political and military power to do so.

That's my definition of slave, working for another's benefit against my will because I feel I have no other choice.