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 really believed the Priory of Scion was actually a thing.
ReplyDeleteHilarious. I am the third.
ReplyDeleteI was duped into watching one of the movies. At one point Tom Hanks asks for a map of "all the churches in Rome." This is like asking for a list of all the parking signs in Manhattan.
In one book, he says that Christians got the idea for the Eucharist from the Aztecs. Which would mean that no one had communion before 1500 A.D.
Delete