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...
No one even wants to know why I place the blame where I do?
ReplyDeleteGene, I'm the only reader you have. Unless you blame it on Rothbard, you won't get a rise out of me.
ReplyDeleteCome on, Bob, since I allowed Silas back on board, I know there at least two of you.
ReplyDeleteI blame the Québécois for everything, so for me there was nothing to explain.
ReplyDelete