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...
Sorry, but NYC is a bit out of the way.
ReplyDeleteHow about tell us what your answer is?
But of course constitutions are political compromises and not the product of a "design team" The (in)effectiveness of a constitution depends less on what it says than on the existence of political institutions/players willing to enforce it.
I'm there (possibly).
ReplyDelete'But of course constitutions are political compromises and not the product of a "design team"'
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my (Oakeshott's) opints -- people think they are designing a constitution, but they are really just cobbling one together from bitsand pieces of traditions, customs, precepts, ideologies, etc.
How will I know it's you, Sidney?
ReplyDelete(Oh, and contact me as to how to get in the building if you're coming.)
Runescape money, I'm glad you're interested as well.
ReplyDelete