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...
This of course should make you less confident of your anti-immigrant views, if indeed you hold them.
ReplyDeleteBut only your anti-immigrant views. No need to question your pro-immigrant views, if indeed you hold them.
It's worse than that. If there is a correlation of R between X and Y, then there is presumably also a correlation of R between not X and not Y. So sons who hold pro-immigrant views also do so "merely" because their fathers held pro-immigrant views.
ReplyDelete