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...
Gene, I'm sure the shit is going to hit the fan one of these days. Maybe tomorrow, or maybe 50 years from tomorrow, but happen it most certainly will. I do not want to live in a major population center for that reason.
ReplyDeleteWhen the big one happens, you can bet on an overt religious war to follow. I won't have a dog in that fight.
I've never been a big fan of Hitchens. He's a blowhard who cuts too many intellectual corners. In fact, like Bill Maher, I consider him more of an entertainer than an actual intellectual. Except Bill Maher may actually be a little smarter. And much funnier.
ReplyDeleteOnly BAD Moslems.
ReplyDelete