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...
I'm one of those people who would like to see laws locking down these data industries. I consider myself to be a civil libertarian, so I'd expect laissez-faire libertarians to object and say that I favor unfree markets. The problem I always had with that line of thought is that it shoves everything into economic policy and laws designed to protect privacy aren't meant to be economic policy in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBTW, could you send me your paper "Liberty vs Libertarianism"?
Sure thing. Send me an email: you can find my address online all over the place.
Delete