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...
Ha. Was his right brain eaten by rodents?
ReplyDeleteHe's got to be trolling at this point. Even Caplan can't fail to notice ALL the missing steps in his "argument."
ReplyDeleteMan puts the ass in Asperger's
ReplyDeleteGood catch, Gene. I had meant to guffaw at this one myself, but I laid off because I've been too anti-GMU lately.
ReplyDelete