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...
I got tricked! There's nothing here. Oh...I get it...we're supposed to suggest a must read post. Well...in that case...here's my suggestion...A Must Read Post.
ReplyDeleteSorry, works now.
DeleteHmmm...for some reason I still feel tricked. When you clicked on my link did you feel tricked?
DeleteNo, why would I have?
DeleteI don't know? Maybe you felt like I was using your comments section to promote tax choice?
DeleteOK by me.
DeleteIf you ever get a chance, and have any interest in the tax choice concept, it would be pretty darn great if you were to write up a critique of the concept. :D
DeleteWhat, no "the page at the following link is false" shenanigans?
ReplyDelete