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...
Is this the guy that drinks nekkid in your local bar when there's a snowstorm?
ReplyDelete(And I bet novices think I'm speaking gibberish.)
Yes, that's him.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be a big storm though.
ReplyDeleteOh, I am so fond of those shoes. They appear as a comment to my slightly earlier post as well. I am so fond of those shoes. I am so fond of those shoes. I am. I am.
ReplyDelete