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...
Our hosting service, Joyent, had a miassive bank of servers down...
ReplyDeleteCool coinage, Gene! A combo of "massive" and "miasma" (a toxic atmosphere). I like it.
Hey Gene,
ReplyDeleteDon't worry I keep backups of all my comments on this blog, especially since some disappear--even when the rest of your site appears to be functioning fine.
The "dsappeared" comments will re-appear at the right time. Truat me on that.
Hey, I just thought it was a "crash landing".
ReplyDeleteDr. Murray, you are a bit obsessive, I believe.
ReplyDelete