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...
Obama (I actually forgot his first name for a few hours this morning) will go down in history in a fantastically positive way for one great thing: being born black. I am beginning to wonder if he will go down in history for any other reason.
ReplyDeleteI am truly not gloating: Is Woody around? How do you feel about this?
ReplyDelete(I know it sounds like I'm gloating. I'm not. I actually want to know what you are thinking about this. I'm curious if you're doing a "it's still better than McCain" approach, or if you're thinking, "This is not the qualitative change I was running the phone bank for").
Remember I didn't even donate one thin dime to Ron Paul. So I want to know how an enthusiastic political supporter responds to stuff like this.
I, by the way, still do think we are better off than if we got McCain.
ReplyDelete