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...
Not me. Not with Kant rhymes pant nor Kant rhymes taunt. However, when I try the names of several politicians...
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget that there is also 'cant', which is a homophone of two separate words (e.g. see https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cant)
ReplyDeleteGene was at Mises. He knows all about cant.
Delete