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...
Get a kick out of it? He probably set a string of them up with candid cameras in them, just so he could laugh at gullible locavores!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of hipster consumption habits, I hit a snag with the model, figured out what looks to be a solution, and hope to have something for you soon.
LET'S SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT BY GROWING EVERYTHING IN GREENHOUSES WHICH SOUNDS NICE BUT IN PRACTICE INCREASES OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT.
ReplyDeleteLET'S SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT BY GROWING EVERYTHING IN GREENHOUSES WHICH SOUNDS NICE BUT IN PRACTICE INCREASES OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT.
ReplyDelete