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...
Law is necessary for freedom. That is a position I'm in full concurrence with. Kant's argument for government is rather interesting: the state is necessary for making property rights "solid" (my wording for "official"). No state = no possibility of property rights. The state of nature represents mere possession and society with a state enables ownership. It's similar to what you've been saying with regards to civil society and property and presupposition of authority. You seen his argument for property?
ReplyDeleteI have not, but it sounds much like Rousseau's... Which is not surprising, as Kant credits Rousseau as a major influence.
ReplyDeleteI Kant stand it!
ReplyDelete