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...
Oh sure, Gene can ask us questions, but we can't ask him questions.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, good point. Certainly at the individual or family level we wouldn't treat health care spending (or even government health care spending on our behalf) as evidence of health. Quite the opposite.
are my comments getting approved?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that my comments on your march 23 post about walter block aren't getting through.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your next blog post going to be about?
ReplyDelete