Anyone can make a dictionary (at least I think so, maybe I am wrong, but I think anyone can write their own dictionary) . This means a group of evil people who want to corrupt the language can write up their own dictionary. They can define certain words in an unfair way. Or they can define words in a completely wrong way to confuse people. What incentive do they have? I have no idea, but let us just assume that there is such an evil group of people. But what is very interesting is that I never heard anyone in my life being fearful of such people. I never heard anyone propose to have state regulators control the dictionaries. Why not? Because we already live in a world where pretty much anyone can write a dictionary and put it on the market. Since we live in such a world people are not scared of the thought that some evil people will destroy all language by writing up fake dictionaries. They never even consider this possibility because this is the world they are used to, and in this world this problem never happens.
Wikipedia is not regulated by the state. It is a free encyclopedia that anyone can write on. I even made a few contributions to it myself and they still are up there. This does not mean that anyone can post anything they please on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does have people in charge to recheck the information so that no silly person can post anything he wants to. Wikipedia is the best encylopedia ever. I know there are some haters who like to say that Wikipedia is not reliable. But I have no idea what they are talking about. So far all I used it for it was reliable. I use it mainly for mathematics. And the mathematical articles there are superb, usually written by professional mathematicians. But other information that I found on it was useful also. I am sure there are a errors, but that is excusable, it have over 3 million articles, Britanica does not come anywhere close. However, perhaps Wikipedia somehow decides to post all wrong information. Or consider for instance a "Falsepedia" that becomes a competitor for Wikipedia. But Falsepedia contains a lot of false information, purposely. Why are there no people crying out for state regulations to control internet encyclopedias because perhaps some encyclopedia can purposely put false information and trick the pubic into believing something which is false? The answer is simple. Because unregulated encyclopedias is the world in which we live. This is the world we are used to. And because of this people are generally not afraid of living in an unregulated world of encyclopedias. It probably never even comes to anyone's mind to want to regulate encyclopedias to make sure they do not contain false information.
People can walk in the street with knight armor and swords. I know a guy who dressed up for Purim as a knight and had a sword on him. There is no law against wearing knight armor and having a sword on you. There are sometimes special events in the City when medieval lovers dress up in armor and come with their swords. They are not stopped. And I do not think outsiders are scared by knights in the street. If you saw a knight in the street you would probably be amused, not scared. But consider the following argument against the right to be a knight: "if people were able to dress as knights and have swords they would run through the streets and murder everyone, there would be an all out brutal fight, and what about the children, the children will be killed". But does any person today take this argument seriously? If I told an average citizen this argument he would probably find it stupid. Why? Because this is how the world is today. There are no laws stopping knights. And because this is how things are people are comfortable with the current state of the world and are not bothered by unregulated knights.
Gas oven stoves are dangerous. They can be used as a miniature explosive. The danger is magnified by much in places like New York City were people mostly live in apartments and not houses. I am sure gas oven stoves are regulated (just about everything else today) for safety standards, but it does not prevent some crazy person from deciding to abuse the gas stove and cause a dangerous fire or a miniature explosion. So perhaps gas stoves should be banned and replaced by electrical stoves? Electrical stoves are much safer. But where is the fear of gas stoves? It is absent for the same reason. People already live in a world which consists of gas stoves. So people are comfortable with such a world. Let us say that it can empirically be shown that electric stoves save more lives than gas stoves. Do you really think people will catch on to this new regulation? I doubt it. A Google search on "ban gas stoves" does not even give any helpful suggestions. This is not a fear on people's mind. This is the world we live in, so we are naturally comfortable with it.
But now consider the reverse situation. Consider laws that are in place today but would seem funny to an outside observer. The best example I can think of is fire exit signs. Buildings are required to have signs that point to an exit, in case there is a fire. You need to try to be a little imaginative here. But try to imagine living in a world which had no fire exit signs? What would be the difference between this world and our current world? Hardly anything, except maybe a few more saved people from exit signs (though I even doubt this). But imagine further that you were to walk over to a random citizen from this parallel world and ask him, "I propose for all buildings to have fire exist signs". Would he really care? No. Fire exit signs would be a laughable issue for him. Just like unregulated dictionaries, encyclopedias, knights, and gas stoves are to us. Because in his world no fire exit signs are the way things are. People are used to this kind of world, and so they are unbothered with its current state. But what is really funny to watch is that some people get so defense about fire exist signs. You tell them that you are against a mandate for buildings to install fire exit signs and they get angry, "you only care about money, you would rather save $10 then save people".
But where does this fear come from? People in our current world are not afraid of an evil group of people taking over the dictionaries or making a Falsepedia. But why are many people afraid of living in a world without fire exit signs? I think the answer is because there is a fear of the unknown. People cannot imagine a world without exit signs, so they get scared. They immediately assume the worst. And become defensive against people who want to get rid of laws for fire exit signs.
Statism lives off fear, not rationality. Statists are not statists because of some rational reason that they have developed on their own to be statists (a few are, but those are exceptions). Rather statism is the mainstream idea that lives off people's ignorance and fear. The state does not justify itself rationally, not really. It scares people into thinking what would be otherwise. In a world they cannot imagine. Statists are afraid of the unknown, and the state is a means for them to escape from this fear.
Freedom scares statists. Because freedom is not controlled. Freedom cannot be calculated. Freedom is an unknown world. I have no idea that a free world is like. But it does not scare me. It does however scare statists. Because central planning and central calculation is part of statism. If I was able to know what a free world would be like, or how it should be managed, then that would actually be a pretty good argument in favor of me being a dictator. Rather I do not know. I have no idea what will be in place in the free world. This is what scares statists. For them a comfortable life is filled with knowing the future and being (or more precisely "thinking that they are") able to predict the future.
Knights do not scare people. It is not an unknown world. But if instead of swords and knights you mention guns then it scares people. Well, not here in the US, the US is rather gun-friendly. But in most places in Europe. Tell a European about being pro-guns and he would be scared by you. Because he is a statist. He cannot imagine a world with guns. He will immediately assume the worst. He will assume a world in which people run around and shoot each other. He is a statist, he is afraid of the unknown. But strangely he does not have the same attitude about people owning swords, even though he can make the same argument and say if people owned swords they would run around and kill each other.
Unregulated dictionaries and encyclopedias do not scare people. This is the world as it is. But unregulated (unlicensed) doctors do. I have a Jewish friend who is in law school. I once told him that I am against licensing of doctors, and think that any doctor can enter the market. He is a statist. What does he do? The obvious. He assumes the worst. He tells me that if doctors were unlicensed then there would be evil doctors who would lie and cheat and kill people. In such a world lots of people would be dying all because they are unlicensed. I was not surprised. I tried to convince him otherwise, but he was just as fearful. He was fearful because he cannot imagine a world with unlicensed doctors. And is scared. Though strangely there are unlicensed computer repairmen who walk into your house to fix computers - nobody seems to be scared by this as it is the current state of the world.