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...
For some reason I refuse to believe that it was only the anti-smoking groups lobbying for this.
ReplyDeleteYes, I can well imagine groups whose interest is tied to tobacco-cultivation might lobby against this as well!
DeleteDing! Ding! Ding!
DeleteA few years ago we had these ads in Ohio saying something like, "cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco are taxed very highly to dissuade usage, how can we sit back and watch these e-cig users, roll-your-own tobacco users and snus users skate by without paying their fair share", or something like that.
Anyhow, it turned out that it was an anti-smoking group that funded it, and wouldn't you know it that this "anti-smoking" group was funded by a particular tobacco company. Incidentally, the group that funded it was formed due to a particular court case and subsequent legislation some years back that dictated tobacco companies must fund anti-smoking efforts.
Apparently, people make a pretty decent living doing this.