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...
Can this chiropractor prescibe drugs? This might explain the relationship, and it would indeed be good advertising.
ReplyDelete"their relationship" Is this a Freudian slip?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't "at one point in her treatment" be more appropriate?
I would think having anything to do with Jerry Garcia's state of health was the last thing a doctor would want to publicize.
ReplyDeleteYes, but did it stop your wife from going back for more?
Ha, ha, Sydney. I have relationships with my cats, my children, my students, and my parents, which doesn't mean I have sex with all of them.
ReplyDelete