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...
Am I supposed to be able to understand this without the context.
ReplyDeleteIs Mr. Oakeshott trying to say "well what the appropriate action in a difficult situation is depends on the context at that time, so the idealogues who say they have principles and say things should be done this way and that way no matter what, they're ignoring the time element"?
It's a comment on the motive driving someone to embrace an ideology. Generally, I put up quotes because I like them, but a secondary motive is to pehaps get people who are puzzled by them to look up the context!
ReplyDeleteAnd, please: Not being an ideologue does not mean not having principles!