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...
Gene, I think you're a cool guy, but I suspect if we went backpacking through Europe, I would be driven to homicide.
ReplyDeleteAnd Bob, if homicide is indeed what you were driven to, no doubt there would be some who would conclude that, objectively, you did the right thing.
ReplyDeleteJust kidding, of course.
Ridiculous, Tom -- homicide is always OK if you just subjectively decide it's OK!
ReplyDeleteAs Aristotle pointed out, no moral subjectivist actually puts his "principles" into action -- witness Tom's outrage when he thought I had hidden my post to avoid his 'scathing' critiques.
ReplyDeleteHomicide is OK precisely when there are no witnesses. The classic mistake in homicide is assuming that the only witnesses are the person or persons dead.
ReplyDelete