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...
Hey I'm pretty funny too. Over at the Huffington Post
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jake-reiner/the-dodgers-need-to-do-so_b_10654.html,
Jake Reiner is reporting on a a person who is about "to make her female debut as GM."
I wonder if this person has already made a male debut, or better yet a transvestite debut as GM?
Great article! Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks for interesting article.
ReplyDeleteExcellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
ReplyDelete