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...
WTG! I am proud to know you, Doctor.
ReplyDeleteWoo hoo! So now you can't get drunk anymore, right?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Jim.
ReplyDeleteBob, I've never been drunk.
Since you're sometimes blogging in italian....
ReplyDelete....congratulazioni dottore!
Ashoka, I think I just fought you in Civilization IV.
ReplyDeleteOUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEARS WEAPONS!
ReplyDeleteNon vedo l'ora che esca Civ V in autunno! So già che passerò le notti a giocarci.. ma è così sin dal primo.
Looking forward to the next chapter this Fall! I know I'm going to play till morning but... it's going like this since the first chapter came out
Marco
P.S. ti scrivo anche in italiano così tu fai pratica con l'italiano ed io con l'inglese :-)
Molto bene, Marco.
ReplyDeleteWonderful. Congratulations, Dr. Callahan.
ReplyDeleteMario