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...
Where are the side-by-side photos? Bloggin 101, Wabulon.
ReplyDeleteBut not to be hurtful, wabbie, but when you were 25 and she was 27 she looked a lot better than you also. At least in my eyes.
ReplyDelete"Raquel Welch is 73. I'm 71. She looks so much better than I do"
ReplyDeleteOh my goodness... the answer is: she's had huge plastic surgery.
I realize this is a joke post etc., but for what it's worth Wabulon, I had no idea you were that old (having met you once). So you got that going for ya, which is nice.
ReplyDeleteI believe that several years ago, when you met, he was somewhat younger.
DeleteHa.
DeleteAt first, I was going to call BS ("Gene's too immature to be that old") ;). But then I realized that Wabulon posted this.
Fallacious reasoning, Joe. I surely will still be this immature at 71.
Delete