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...
You wrote this review just so you could use that title, didn't you?
ReplyDeletelack of state != lack of government.
ReplyDeleteI think when Leeson talks about anarchy he talks about it as lack of state.
On the other hand that may not be the case so maybe you did not just write a kajillion words attacking a straw man. Only Leeson knows.
Did you read the review Avram, or are you just muttering?
ReplyDeleteI read the bit I could without paying.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to read the whole review, shoot me an e-mail: gcallah@mac.com
ReplyDelete