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...
Ha, it took me a second.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why I do this, but sometimes when I am reading certain things I will skip over the parts that my mind tells me aren't important to the general information. In this case, I skipped the restaurant name the first time around, which isn't important to the story, but is definitely important with regard to the joke.
Gene, the photo of the restaurant owner looks a bit like you in your post-mugging photos.
ReplyDeleteNon fare lo stronzo, Andy: I look better than that even mugged.
Delete