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...
"... and been dead for over twenty years!"
ReplyDeleteThat explains why I get along with you. Honesty is key with me, and nobody is more honest than a dead man.
Even my namesake is cooler than yours.
ReplyDeleteA typo: you clearly meant to write: "At least my namesake is cooler than yours."
DeleteWhat a resume! The IMDB profile says you worked on some of the great film director Elia Kazan's films, particularly The Fugitive Kind. Interesting, but I prefer the knowledgeable economist and professor instead.
ReplyDeleteI just figured that's why you're so confident about the materialism thing.
ReplyDelete