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...
The main whore fell for the Lorenzo Von Matterhorn. What makes them think they can tell if you are socialist or not?
ReplyDeleteI think most libertarians aren't very successful at this endeavor anyway.
ReplyDeletebailey button ugg boots
ReplyDeleteugg boots bailey button
bailey button uggs
jordan shoes
air jordan shoes
cheap jordan shoes
michael jordan shoes
nike sb
nike dunks
nike sb shoes