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...
My father said, Anything sufficiently procrastinatored becomes unnecessary. See? And thanks for a text to point to.
ReplyDeleteAnd also we have the [in]famous quotation: "Masturbation is just like procrastination, it's fun at first, but in the end you're just screwing yourself."
ReplyDeleteI'll have to read that.
ReplyDeleteLater.
Pretty funny, Tom.
ReplyDeleteMore evidence of how flawed we are. Dan Ariely, referred to in the article, has an interesting book exploring various human quirks.
ReplyDeleteWith respect to the view of warring internal viewpoints, work on "anosognosia" is also illuminating/fscinating.
See, e.g., Gary Farber: Why Argue On Blogs? The Dunning-Kruger Effect
ReplyDeletehttp://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/09/why-argue-on-blogs-the-dunning-kruger-effect.html