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...
I bet he neglects the upside of the slave trade, too.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the point of your remark, Bob. Certainly, an analysis of the slave trade that implied no one economically benefited from it would be somewhat lacking, wouldn't it? And this inflation arose through 'market forces' -- at least on the European end of things -- as Spanish gold and silver from the New World poured into the European economy. It COULD have been the case that the New World was empty when the Spaniards arrived, and they discovered unhomesteaded gold and silver. The inflation than would be a pure market phenomenon -- and aren't those all benign?
ReplyDelete