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...
Certainly the faith of these moslems is strong, and it appears they have a theocracy fetish.
ReplyDeleteAre there any moslem libertarians out there? It's probably a more obvious oxymoron than government worker.
So Uncle Sucker made yet another good choice, sacrifice one dictatorship for another!
Not just fundamentalist, but semi-socialist to boot (as Justin Raimondo points out http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6725)
ReplyDeleteAnon, yes there are some moslem libertarians in the U.S. -
http://www.minaret.org/
I don't know of any in Arab countries though.