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...
It's only $25 to read?
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're out of luck. I can't get it for free either, it seems.
ReplyDeleteAnyone desiring a pdf copy may contact me. It should also be available for free through many university libraries.
ReplyDeleteA few comments here, though with a slant I expect not exactly fascinating for readers of this blog.
ReplyDeleteChris, how could you imagine that your comments will not fascinate everyone?
ReplyDelete