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...
Gene, sir, do you ever get the strange feeling that the country is slowing losing it's mind? I have had this unsettling idea going over in my head for a bit - and the latest news seems to confirm it more and more.
ReplyDeleteJust going to one of my gaming and movie sites, IGN, resulted in a rumor that Jennifer Lawrence was going to be playing Han Solo in the new Star Wars movies. The fact that people actually thought of this as being legitimate just, I don't know? Stupefies me?
Some of the reactions from feminists are the usual; gender is a made up construct, blah blah blah, etc. Apparently, if I tell you that I am Caesar, or Gene Callahan, or Robert Murphy instead of Alex Woollends, I am crazy.
If I tell you I am a woman, I am on the cutting edge of gender philosophy.
Sorry to ramble...
~Alex