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...
No kidding, that was fantastic.
ReplyDeleteMy respect for Naomi Wolf has increased dramatically. It isn't just about "because she now agrees with me", but because she has the intelligence, integrity and humility to listen and reassess in the face of the psychological pain of recognising previous unexamined beliefs. That takes real guts, real heart, and it is a rare and precious thing.
ReplyDeletebob, I told others the exact same thing. For serious, I think it might just be. The way Lew graciously handles her and manages to still treat her as the guest and worth hearing from, even after she makes her ignorance clear and peppers him with questions--openly, hungrily... it's really great. It gives me slight hope that there is hope--the left may be amenable, some of them. The right--not. Imagine a conservative being this receptive.
ReplyDelete