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...
because if they didn't tip x planes over the side so that x planes could land, those planes stuck in the sky would presumably have been lost anyway, with their pilots. i don't know why your friend laughed, but that may be it. there was no net sacrifice of planes to save soldiers.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is why. To put it more exactly, the admirals must have reckoned that the price they were willing to pay to liquidate one of their own pilots did not exceed the difference in value between an average plane and a bottom-of-the-hold plane.
ReplyDelete