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...
Take it from a Canadian - the answer is definitely d) Neil Young.
ReplyDeleteMagdalena, my daughter dear,
ReplyDeleteDo not be concerned when your
Canadian daddy comes near.
My daughter dear
Do not be concerned when your
Canadian daddy comes near.
I work so hard,
Dont you understand,
Making maple syrup
For the pancakes of our land.
Do you have any idea
What that can do to a man
What that can do to a man?
Do you have any idea
What that can do to a man
What that can do to a man?