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'm going to guess Ludwig von Mises. (I didn't Google; promise.)
ReplyDeleteMike gets it in one!
DeleteAlthough I must admit, I vaguely recall Kevin Carson citing this quote (or something like it) to make a point several years ago.
ReplyDeleteAnd didn't the author build on that premise to provide a utilitarian basis for minarchism ?
ReplyDeleteThat dirty socialist!
ReplyDeleteThe thing about this is that there is nothing wrong with admitting it. If libertarians were to admit this, it wouldn't take away from their case at all, only their more idiotic declarations of pacifism.
ReplyDeleteOh Samson, you have really misjudged them here. The whole allure of the homesteading fable is that then they can claim to be pure and demonstrably right, from first principles. Their argument against intervention is also based on the notion the free markets are "justice preserving". But that means little if the initial condition is unjust. If you want a simple minded mantra you can throw at opponents then you cannot allow problems like that in.
Delete