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...
Getting?
ReplyDeleteAccording to certain people whom I *thought* were friends, I am "retarded", but I had not yet heard senile.
DeleteWait, did I say you were "retarded" at some point? That sounds very unlike me, I normally don't call people names. I might say something along the lines of somebody acting retarded or saying retarded things. Or were you thinking of somebody else?
DeleteIt was a Facebook post, Joe. I think it appeared in about 4 AM. Nuff said.
Delete