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 hope so. I'll certainly be happy to read Billy Beck's in-depth coverage of the monster. Also his coverage of her (its?) essential wickedness from before then...
ReplyDeleteWe're not still friends?
ReplyDeleteAlso his coverage of her (its?) essential wickedness from before then...
ReplyDeleteAnd wonder why he's, just as vigorously, neglected to point out the essential wickedness of George Bush.
I seriously don't see Mrs Clinton as any worse than any of those grinning jackals - Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, and Romney - that nervously mock Ron Paul whenever they share the stage with him.
"I seriously don't see Mrs Clinton as any worse than any of those grinning jackals..."
ReplyDeleteQuoted for truth.