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...
Bob, you really got to work on your blogging skills.
ReplyDeleteWhatchoo talkin bout, Willis?
ReplyDeleteThe only time you ever blog is for singing related matters. We hunger for your economic and political insights. This blog has a lot of potential, but frankly you are slacking. Gene is doing a great job of keeping it going, but I'm just saying, maybe an economics post about a song maybe, analyzing the marginal utility of the next drum solo. Stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteYes'm massah.
ReplyDeleteDon't you go sassin' John, boy!
ReplyDelete