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...
(sigh) There's something wrong with me. I can never see those three-dimensional messages hidden in an apparently random field of colors. Similarly, I never hear the backwards messages. Oh, but I can say "Merry Christmas" backwards so that if you play that backwards, you do hear "Merry Christmas."
ReplyDeleteYou didn't hear it in "Another One Bites the Dust"? I thought that one sounded really good, so much so I wondered if it's really the song playing backwards.
ReplyDelete