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...
It's amazing to me that they spent almost the entire time talking about Assange's motives and whether he has a double standard for transparency (as if there isn't a difference between how a democratically elected government should operate vs. a private individual) and virtually no time on the substance of the Wikileaks info. Is the fact that Hilary Clinton tried to collect DNA samples of foreign diplomats just not interesting?
ReplyDeleteYeah, or why they could not comprehend that someone the US government has reason to eliminate should have cause to hide, given that Obama has declared he can assassinate anyone he wants to assassinate.
ReplyDelete