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 think this settles the matter.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt some of the things he's arguing, but the frightening thing is how depressing Noah's rant will be when he applies these same metrics to inner city blacks.
ReplyDeleteIf you ask me it doesn't look good regardless of the race.
Gene, that wasn't very nice. I've worked very hard to develop an impassive attitude to the American political charade, and I truly hope for the complete destruction of the GOP, but when some dipshit writes something like that and I read it, it undoes alot of that work. The rage just flows through me, because that piece tars my entire extended family.
ReplyDeletePS: You should check out the description of the study in Time that the piece linked to showing relative drug use of different races. TLP would be proud.