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...
Maybe you're thinking, "Surely everyone understands enough Italian to at least get what I'm doing in these posts."
ReplyDeleteNope.
Yeah, I suppose I should have posted the explanation in English, huh?
ReplyDeleteJust forcing myself to write in Italian is all.
I read in an Italian textbook, "Today, many youngins have abandoned the country for the great cities."
ReplyDeleteAnd after, a rich, English husband and wife buy the property a write a book about repairing it.