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...
Gene,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that your reading is the *only* conclusion to be drawn from Oliva's post? In other words, are you claiming that Oliva is being disingenuous, incoherent, or just reckless? If is is possible to read Oliva's post differently than you do (which seems likely; it is a difficult thing to prove that denying your conclusion is tantamount to logical incoherence), and that reading is more charitable, then it is incumbent upon you to grant that charity. If not, however, then your critique stands.
"and that reading is more charitable, then it is incumbent upon you to grant that charity."
ReplyDeleteStephen, I gave this a *very likely* reading. And since we are talking about the sort of rhetoric which has, in the past, led people to fly a plane into an IRS building and blow up a Fed building in Oklahoma, it is, I think, incumbent upon Oliva to guard much more carefully against such a reading.