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 Bob,
ReplyDeleteApropos of this clip from the "Daily Show," I thought I'd draw your attention to this post from Daniel Larison both commenting on the clip and making a number of really good points about the significant rhetorical and ideological continuity that is missed in the Obama-mania and all the talk of 'Change' one hears in the press and elsewhere.
Dangit, I left out the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/01/21/ideology-of-national-security/