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 was pretty bummed out. NB, it wasn't that I thought the polls were biased, but rather that I thought Paul supporters would turn out in greater strength than McCain or Romney etc. supporters. So if random surveys had Paul at 10%, I was hoping he'd actually get 12 or 13.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Sean Hannity had something to do with this.
I think it was the weather, and Paul would have done better under normal conditions. Paul supporters were going to vote regardless of the weather. Who is really excited about McCain or Romney? Obama was looking at a major victory, but the old farts made it to the polls.
ReplyDelete