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...
I quite enjoyed surfing through this site. Plenty of laughs to be had. And ideas to be pondered.
ReplyDeleteAs for this guy, several lifetimes ago when I was putting on the big buzz, I think he sold me a dime bag in Pittsburgh.
A quick note to let you know I've included you in the newest edition of Surfer's Paradise. I hope this link serves you well.
Should you have an opportunity to come for a look I'll be interested to see what you think.
"As for this guy, several lifetimes ago when I was putting on the big buzz, I think he sold me a dime bag in Pittsburgh."
ReplyDeleteMaybe so, but it's his name we'll be wanting, laddie.
That's the link between the inherent coolness of James Brown and the pure funk of George Clinton...Sly Stone
ReplyDeleteAnonymous #2 has it in one!
ReplyDeleteThank you. Whom do I contact regarding my prize? Regards, David
ReplyDeleteYou mean that's not Doug Pinnick of King's X?
ReplyDelete