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...
To be fair, they absolutely need ratings . . .
ReplyDeleteIf a TV Weatherman didn't go do outside reporting during a major storm when asked, he would probably lose his job. So he does absolutely need to be out there.
ReplyDeleteI fully understand their motivations, and don't even blame them for going out. It's just a bit rich for them to then lecture us on not going out unless we "need" to: Maybe we "need" photos for twitter the same way they "need" ratings.
ReplyDeleteLast night, I heard a TV weatherman giving very sound advice to the millions of people who are currently without electricity.
ReplyDeleteGuess it never occurred to him that TVs run on, um, electricity.