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...
Sad. Because Relighting an extinguished butt tastes horrible.
ReplyDeleteAs a former smoker (hanging around outdoor ashtrays) you see this often enough in central cities.
When I was in high school, I knew a kid who would occasionally assemble a full cigarette out of several butts and scotch tape.
I wonder if there are those who will only smoke used "American Spirit" Brand cigarettes. God those people are insufferable.
"Sad. Because Relighting an extinguished butt tastes horrible."
ReplyDeleteYeah, if I had had a smoke I would have given it to him.