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...
The title of this post is definitely quotable material. It neatly sums up in one single sentence one of the problems (if not THE problem) with rationalistic, let's-replace-everything-we-have-with-this-great-system-I'tve-come-up-with ideas to improve the world. It made me think of the French Revolution. I'm not sure that was your intention. But it does fit nicely in the context of several things you've been writing.
ReplyDeleteYes, the French Revolution is the paradigm of the phenomenon the title describes.
DeleteYes, please, let's make step-by-step improvements in what we've got, and not think we can build a new society from scratch!