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...
If you're about to get hit by a bus, maybe stopping to read a text is not such a good idea.
ReplyDeleteIf someone had their attention in the "meat" world, then I agree: Stopping to read a text would be stupid. But I think were supposed to picture someone who is totally immersed in the virtual world, And the text is their only prayer.
DeleteGene, DUCK!
ReplyDeleteThanks andy! That was close.
DeleteUzzud bass! Uzzudam bass!! Bass! Aaaghhh!
ReplyDelete