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 mean you aren't willing to share?
ReplyDeleteI like to call it MY democracy.
ReplyDelete"Gene's democracy," I think you meant to say.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It's just as revolting as "We the People"', another phrase invented by conniving liars to facilitate their subjugation of the gullible.
ReplyDeleteNobody ever chose to be a part of the democracy, so your sentiment is correct.
ReplyDelete"Our" democracy makes it sound like they are not actually subjects of a system, and are rather the original builders of the system.
It's the same as people who say, "We won" when a national athlete wins the Olympics. They didn't win anything. They weren't there. They didn't jump those very high hurdles.
Well, that's not quite the way I was looking at it, bestquest, but welcome back.
ReplyDelete