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...
Hi, Im from Melbourne in the land of Oz--wherever that is!
ReplyDeletePlease check out these essays on the relation between science, religion & culture. They are not arguing against the scientific method as a means of free enquiry. But that the scientific method of abstraction and objectification has become our way of relating to everything and all of the time. Such that we "live" in a virtual "world" of left brained abstractions.
1. www.dabase.net/broken.htm
2. www.dabase.net/spacetim.htm
3. www.dabase.net/ilchurst.htm
4. www.dabase.net/dht6.htm
5. www.daplastique.com
6. www.aboutadidam.org
i like runescape money
ReplyDeletecheap rs gold
NosTale gold