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...
Just to be clear, you're mad at him for saying such provocative things, and then backtracking when he realized it would cost him money, right?
ReplyDeleteOr are you mad that he made the analogy in the first place?
Both.
ReplyDeleteThe funny part of this story was that he runs highbrow elite restaurants that generally serve professionals such as...bankers.
ReplyDeleteHitler and Stalin? Ridiculous.
ReplyDeletevon Krosigk and Hrynko might be closer.
preteek,
ReplyDeleteI've often done business with people that I find unsavory, so I don't see much of a problem there.
I mean, if there is a racist businessman, it would be to his benefit to also do business with those that he feels are inferior with regard to race, even if he finds those individuals unsavory due to his own beliefs.