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 does machete sales have to do with an illegal immigration bill? Did Sandy report both?
ReplyDeleteNo connection except 'democracy at work'. (Note: In the UK, so must use UK-style quotation conventions -- when in Rome and all!)
ReplyDeleteI like how you totally sidestepped the quotation convention in your original post. Sneaky.
ReplyDeleteAndy, I was halfway between continents.
ReplyDeleteThanks for article!
ReplyDeleteThanks for interesting article.
ReplyDeleteGlad to read articles like this. Thanks to author!
ReplyDeleteExcellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
ReplyDelete