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...
Yes it is funny, but I'm betting DeLong wouldn't like it if the Heritage Foundation did a chart showing the absolute federal budget deficit under Obama compared to Thomas Jefferson.
ReplyDeleteHe might not.
ReplyDeleteFunny yes... but ARRRGGGH it's from the Urban Institute. They know better than that!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously meant to be a punch-line, but they are not in the business of punch-lines, so that's disappointing to see.
The Tax Policy Center is a joint Urban-Brookings project. I'm just going to pretend that graph came from the Brookings side of the house.