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...
Joseph, you really made me laugh, but... I think I'm NOT going to put that one out. You understand, right?
ReplyDeleteYup! It was more for your own amusement than anything else.
ReplyDeleteSince you don't have any other means of contact, I will often post comments (for your approval) that don't necessarily need to be posted. It's your blog so you are the final arbiter of that, however, I think that it is usually pretty clear which posts of mine are meant for general display and which are not.
As for that last one, yeah. That one can sit on the sideline. After all, I would not want to tarnish my otherwise exemplary record of (ahem) top-notch comments. LOL
Joseph, it certainly did amuse me. But, should you ever need to contact me, my email address is trivial to find via Google.
ReplyDeleteI'm too busy bugging the hell out of Murphy. Ha!
ReplyDelete