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...
I bet he was just a close Ron Paul supporter, and Paul asked him to do this bombing, survive and pretend later on that he did it because of US foreign policy to lend the ludicrous non-sequitur theory of blow-back some credibility...
ReplyDeleteRegarding your island example I have to admit that I misunderstood your example to a certain degree or better said in what direction the argument is used. I apologize. I dismissed that approach because I thought and still think it is the wrong way to look at it, and is neither analogous of what happened in the past and even if then it would still not justify any of the policies favored by Keynesians.
Though I have to become clearer about that and when I have finally made up my mind about this and feel that I can express it accordingly I will get back to you. Else you were just right!