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...
That is one of the coolest things I have ever heard of. Do you think he'll get it back? Are you close enough friends to get a ride in it?
ReplyDeleteI imagine he will get it back, and he needs it back as the main exhibit in his next gallery show. I certainly could get a "ride" in it, although all it can do at present is bob along in the current. In fact, I will appear on video in the exhibit featuring this sub, playing a conspiracy-minded history professor. Tonight, I made a serious effort to get arrested along with Duke by playing 4-on-4 capture the flag in the middle of a main Brooklyn street at 3 am, but all I succeeded in doing was getting a severe gash above my eye as I pursued an opponent. Oh, won't someone arrest me and put me on the front page of every New York paper?
ReplyDelete