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...
Wabulon, take an old pop cain, fill it with coins and tape the top. Every time this C character is going to hit his dog or talks about hitting his dog, shake the can by his ear.
ReplyDelete"an old pop cain"
ReplyDeleteIs this a Joycean illusion to one half of the primordial pair of warring brothers?
It was indeed a Joycean "illusion." It only appeared to be a mistake.
ReplyDeleteAvast! I am hoist on my own petard!
ReplyDelete