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 assume this is some other Bob Murphy.
ReplyDeleteNope. But in retrospect, I can see why my blog post made it sound that way!
ReplyDeleteAre you appearing along with Jefferson Airplane and Big Brother and the Holding Company? (Poster style!)
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, but we are distributing one pill to make tax bills larger, and one pill to make them small.
ReplyDeleteIf you just remember what the dormouse said, you'll be OK.
ReplyDelete