I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
What makes it even more painful is that two of my debunkers appear to have actually read the book.
ReplyDelete--Kevin Carson (public computer)
Oh jeez! I can't believe I forgot that you check this blog all the time. Umm, I didn't agree with your book. There, I said it.
ReplyDeleteWell, when someone tries to defend the labor theory of value... well, they desserve what they get.
ReplyDeleteThat's OK, Bob--I didn't expect a symposium issue full of reviews by people who agreed with me. But I do appreciate the fact that you and Roderick Long actually appear to have read the damn book before reviewing it, and bothered to thoughtfully engage the arguments. (No implied commentary on the other reviewers is intended by my omission.)
ReplyDeleteHere is the eve isk,
ReplyDeleteeve online isk is the regular site.
buy isk we supply the regular service.
cheap eve isk
buy eve online isk I hope I can help you.