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...
Great speech. I think he derides speculation too much, but he's right that as far as science is concerned, testing is everything. That's why these morphogenetic field theories, string theory, neo-Darwinism, etc. are so fruitless in the context of good old fashioned scientific inquiry. Building models is fun, but it's merely that unless you can test it against reality.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Bob, you know your articles are no longer on lewrockwell.com? Is there a reason for that or is that some computer glich? I hope you didn't piss of Lew Rockwell, you don't want him on your bad side. He knows people.