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...
"You have to have some swagger, for crying out loud. ... Not good.
ReplyDeleteSo we see that there is yet another problem with democracies. Because of their periodic elections, even relatively stable States such as the US temporarily lose their footing."
Bob, this seems a bit muddled.
You want Obama to have more swagger, why? To better scare off bad guys abroad, OR to better manipulate the American people into supporting huge diversions of wealth to friends in the defense industries?
And you suggest that democracies are more likely (than autocratic regimes?) to "lose their footing" (by supporting a waste of taxpayers' funds on defense? Sure we have a huge problem in the US that is noticeable worse over the Bush administration. But how can you with a straight face suggest that the problem is LESS under an autocratic regime, which would tolerate much less internal criticism to diversions of wealth used to keep themselves in power?
Bemoan our easily manipulated tribal instincts for hostility and chest-beating all you like, but please don't wish more of it, AND more autocracy as a cure, on us.