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...
Everyone is donating $100 on the 5th of November. (The new slogan for that day):
ReplyDeleteYear 1605 (England)
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason why gunpowder treason,
Should ever be forgot.
Year 2007 (America)
Remember, remember the fifth of November,
Ron Paul, and the money he got,
I see no reason my government's treason,
Should ever be forgot.
Credit given:
5th of November