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've noticed (especially since the coming of the internet) that there seems to be this periodic pushing of fad fields that we're all supposed to be really interested in if we want to be really cool and up on everything. Right now it seems to be neurology, AI, and space exploration. Not too long ago it was genetics, CSI-type stuff and psychological profiling.
ReplyDeleteI've kind of wondered if there's not some conspiratorial element to this -- like there's some circle of elites or government agency (the BLS, maybe?) that decides "hmmm...? what should the little people be thinking about for the next few years, so they'll push their kids to study this stuff & we can flood the market with particular expertise?"
Or something like that. I know there's supposed to be a BRAIN research initiative going on right now.
Or maybe it's just random social cycles...