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...
Bob, where have you been the past six years? Inquiring minds and all that.
ReplyDelete? I wasn't frozen, if that's what you mean.
ReplyDeleteThen I'm puzzled, Bob. I thought that, like me, you and Gene were part of "God's frozen people";).
ReplyDeleteFurther, your interest in cryonics and reference to an article that's now six years old (with Ted and the son mentioned in the article now BOTH being frozen) seemed like evidence that you are a more advanced alcolyte than me.
So if you're not studying up on Limbo, what's going on?
Uh, I dunno what to tell you TT. The other day I wondered how many people have been cryogenically frozen, I googled for 3 minutes, and posted the most informative things I found.
ReplyDelete