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...
Wow, so now it's *really* a mystery why he only cared about the short run with his economic policies, huh Gene?
ReplyDeleteI kid, I kid.
I was thinking it was Watson posing the question to Sherlock Holmes. A similar social background at least
ReplyDeleteIdealism seems to have been quite the fashion among Brits educated during the first decades of the 20th.
ReplyDeleteIts peak was about 1900, when it dominated philosophy in the Anglo-speaking world. On this side of the pond, W. James, C.S. Peirce, and J. Royce were famous proponents of idealism.
Delete"And what d'you feel about immortality, Ken B?"
ReplyDelete"I'll take two."