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...
There seem to have been a lot of problems at S&P. I think there's good evidence it was a bad decision.
ReplyDeleteApparently Michael Moore thinks that threatening decision makers with police action will make bad decisions better.
I'm failing to understand the logic, but then, this is not a new experience with Michael Moore.
It's vaguely possible that Moore feels there is some sort of conspiracy to damage the US economy going on, but he gives no sign he thinks that, and I'm not even sure that is a crime.
ReplyDelete