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...
Gene suffers from a chronic case of awesomeness, with an emphasis on the chronic
ReplyDeleteHey. I also suffer from awesomeness, and I seem to be doing fine. Sheesh. :)
ReplyDeleteJohn McCain: working it out.
Yo, I'm just ridin' atop my $20 sack pyramid, yo.
ReplyDeleteWabulon tries to keep it various, kinda liked not just eating one kind of fish, it case of your unlucky chosen just happens to be the one with 1,000,000,000 ppm (and, please, don't comment, correcting a misnumeration).
ReplyDelete