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...
But Hillary doesn't hold office.
ReplyDeleteThat was an EXAMPLE of the kind of regard for legitimacy Adams was talking about. And you forgot to point out that Clinton is not Roman!
DeleteBut don't you think there's a pretty substantive difference, in terms of the logic/telos behind such a (non-)practice?
DeleteProsecuting an existing office holder is substantively different from disqualifying a potential one.
Well, I guess Comey could indict her, and then the Democratic convention could nominate someone else for president, which the voters really might like better.
ReplyDeleteBut we're not Rome! We should hold our officials accountable. (I don't know if Hillary is guilty of anything as I haven't been paying attention to the email stuff or her.)
ReplyDelete