Obligations

There are only two ways that I know of that can obligate an adult to obey another adult.  The first is through a contract, agreed to by both parties, with the terms clearly laid out.  The other is when one is on the property of another.  However, if one does not wish to obey when on the property of another, one may choose to leave.  Of course, this implies that leaving is fairly simple.  For example, if one is a passenger in a car and the driver is going 100mph, and asks the passenger to do something the passenger does not agree to, the passenger would not be obligated to jump out of the car.  The passenger would have the right to not obey the driver, until the driver stops somewhere appropriate to let the passenger out.  This is assuming the passenger is not being aggressive towards the driver.

Given this, I would like to have the following conversation with a so called police officer if I get pulled over for a so called traffic violation, assuming the LEO does not become too violent towards me:

LEO: May I see your driver's license and registration?

Me: Am I obligated to show them to you?

LEO: Yes

Me: May I ask how I am obligated?

LEO: It is the law.

Me: But isn't the law just some words written on paper by some strangers, which I never signed? 

LEO: Well...

Me: I understand when I get a credit card that I get to review the terms, and if I agree, I can sign agreeing to the terms.  I never signed the constitution or anything else given to me by the government, except under duress.  I also understand if I am on the property of another, that they can ask anything of me, but if I do not agree that I can leave.  But this is public property, and as such no one owns it.  So isn't it true that the only reason I am obligated to show these to you is that you are a violent person working for a violent organization and that you will hurt me if I do not show them to you?

LEO: No

Me: Then could you explain to me how I am obligated?  Or am I free to go?

LEO: Just let me see your driver's license and registration.

Me: Because if I don't show them to you, you will hurt me, and that is the only reason that I should show them to you?...

The whole point is to reveal the gun in the room, and make it clear that he is the criminal, and I am the victim.  I would fully expect him to reveal his violent tendencies and threaten me to make me show them to him.  I may not get a chance to try it until I move to New Hampshire, but if I do make it up there soon, I would definitely try this there.

First, you advocate child rape/murder as legal and are a huge hypocrit/pseudo-libertarian IMO. link

Second, read Reinach.

E. R. Olovetto:

First, you advocate child rape/murder as legal and are a huge hypocrit/pseudo-libertarian IMO. link

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Even if children do have rights, how is that relevant to this topic? If you cannot stay on topic, can you keep you trap shut and withdraw your statement?

E. R. Olovetto:

Second, read Reinach.

I can't get the article to open. Regardless, does it have anything to do with the topic? If so, would you mind explaining?

You'd never finish your first sentence. You'd probably get tased by the third reply.

With regards to your example:

I am obligated to things that are unavoidably stronger than I am (gravity, aging, etc) i.e. things I can do nothing about.  A contract doesn't obligate me, it is just a formality based off of calculations with the credit of the characters in relation to the outside environment to which the contract was signed .  A confrontation with the police officer obligates me to no action, I just weigh out the best options for me and act accordingly.

 Likewise a giant gun in my face robbing me obliges me to do nothing. I just have to asses priorities and see what I value most and to think if that value is tenable in the situation I am in; IIn such a situation I am neither obligated to live or die or rebel or comply.

lol I would like to watch you have this conversation.

Dondoolee:

With regards to your example:

I am obligated to things that are unavoidably stronger than I am (gravity, aging, etc) i.e. things I can do nothing about.  A contract doesn't obligate me, it is just a formality based off of calculations with the credit of the characters in relation to the outside environment to which the contract was signed .  A confrontation with the police officer obligates me to no action, I just weigh out the best options for me and act accordingly.

 Likewise a giant gun in my face robbing me obliges me to do nothing. I just have to asses priorities and see what I value most and to think if that value is tenable in the situation I am in; IIn such a situation I am neither obligated to live or die or rebel or comply.

I understand your point, but you are just talking about semantics. I would guess most people understand what a contractual obligation means. Of course it does not mean that you cannot violate the terms of the contract. It just means that you agreed to the terms, and that violating them will result in people trusting your signature on future contracts that much less.

Mtn Dew:

You'd never finish your first sentence. You'd probably get tased by the third reply.

I am not as cynical about it as you are. http://www.copblock.org/cop-block-video-draws-attention/ In this video, a guy stands up for his right to open carry, to two police men. At the end of it he just asks, "Am I free to go? OK, I am leaving." And then leaves. The cops are left standing.

This "incident" wouldn't prove anything to anyone. The road has an owner. If it didn't, you'd be able to homestead parts of it and make them your own. At the very least, you know very well that the road is not yours. This owner has hired an agent to enforce the laws/rules it wants followed on his property. By placing yourself on someone else's property you agreed to follow his laws/rules and you've subjected yourself to them. The fact that the owner is a thing called "government", and whether it's a "just" or "rightful" owner is besides the point. Build your own road on your own property and do whatever you want on it. No gun will stop you and ask you for your licence and registration. Z.

Spideynw:

E. R. Olovetto:

First, you advocate child rape/murder as legal and are a huge hypocrit/pseudo-libertarian IMO. link

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Even if children do have rights, how is that relevant to this topic? If you cannot stay on topic, can you keep you trap shut and withdraw your statement?

Why would I withdraw my statement? You've got to be kidding. How about you withdraw from your ridiculous position? I told you when you sent me messages that I would point out your position whenever I felt like it.

Spideynw:

E. R. Olovetto:

Second, read Reinach.

I can't get the article to open. Regardless, does it have anything to do with the topic? If so, would you mind explaining?

It works fine, you never seem to want to learn anything anyhow.

z1235:

This "incident" wouldn't prove anything to anyone. The road has an owner. If it didn't, you'd be able to homestead parts of it and make them your own. At the very least, you know very well that the road is not yours. This owner has hired an agent to enforce the laws/rules it wants followed on his property. By placing yourself on someone else's property you agreed to follow his laws/rules and you've subjected yourself to them. The fact that the owner is a thing called "government", and whether it's a "just" or "rightful" owner is besides the point. Build your own road on your own property and do whatever you want on it. No gun will stop you and ask you for your licence and registration. Z.

How can you still not understand the difference between ownership and control? States cannot legitimately own anything.

Spideynw:

LEO: May I see your driver's license and registration?

Me: Am I obligated to show them to you?

LEO: Yes

Me: May I ask how I am obligated?

LEO: It is the law.

Me: But isn't the law just some words written on paper by some strangers, which I never signed? 

LEO: Well...

You are also obliged to let your partner leave you for someone else, to which you have never agreed.

E. R. Olovetto:

Spideynw:

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Even if children do have rights, how is that relevant to this topic? If you cannot stay on topic, can you keep you trap shut and withdraw your statement?

Why would I withdraw my statement? You've got to be kidding. How about you withdraw from your ridiculous position? I told you when you sent me messages that I would point out your position whenever I felt like it.

Any moderators notice this? He is intentionally making points that are completely off topic to derail the thread. Could someone please delete his post for me?

E. R. Olovetto:

It works fine,

Not on my computer. It is a pdf file, and apparently my Adobe is not setup correctly on my browser, even though I just reinstalled it. So how about you explain to those of us that can't open it how it is relevant?

z1235:

This "incident" wouldn't prove anything to anyone. The road has an owner. If it didn't, you'd be able to homestead parts of it and make them your own. At the very least, you know very well that the road is not yours. This owner has hired an agent to enforce the laws/rules it wants followed on his property. By placing yourself on someone else's property you agreed to follow his laws/rules and you've subjected yourself to them. The fact that the owner is a thing called "government", and whether it's a "just" or "rightful" owner is besides the point. Build your own road on your own property and do whatever you want on it. No gun will stop you and ask you for your licence and registration. Z.

It is public property, and therefore not owned by anyone or it is owned by all, however you want to look at it. As such, no one has any authority on it to tell anyone else what to do on it.

scineram:

You are also obliged to let your partner leave you for someone else, to which you have never agreed.

What are you talking about?

Spideynw:

It is public property, and therefore not owned by anyone or it is owned by all, however you want to look at it. As such, no one has any authority on it to tell anyone else what to do on it.

Am I to assume that you wouldn't object to the treatment if someone did actually own the road? If so, since you very well know that it is not you that owns it, why would you care who does? It's owned by someone/something other than yourself, so you can't ask for the same freedoms as the ones you'd have on your own road on your own property. Z.

Spideynw:

scineram:

You are also obliged to let your partner leave you for someone else, to which you have never agreed.

What are you talking about?

Your dialog demonstrated nothing.

scineram:

You are also obliged to let your partner leave you for someone else, to which you have never agreed.

I usually ignore your posts becuase they are such obvious cries for attention but I can't resist.

Do you not see that the obligation to let your partner leave is the same obligation the cop has to let you leave?

z1235:

Am I to assume that you wouldn't object to the treatment if someone did actually own the road?

Depends on what treatment you mean. But generally speaking, if I am on the property of another, they have the right to ask anything of me, so long as I am allowed to leave.

z1235:

If so, since you very well know that it is not you that owns it, why would you care who does?

Is it not so called "public" property? If it is, then that means that no one owns it. I have already explained this.

MatthewF:

scineram:

You are also obliged to let your partner leave you for someone else, to which you have never agreed.

I usually ignore your posts becuase they are such obvious cries for attention but I can't resist.

Do you not see that the obligation to let your partner leave is the same obligation the cop has to let you leave?

I pay attention for two reasons. I've never seen him write more than two sentences at once, and I have had people message me before about his fellow trolls, thanking me for explaining certain things when they took these folk seriously before.

Spideynw:

E. R. Olovetto:

Spideynw:

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Even if children do have rights, how is that relevant to this topic? If you cannot stay on topic, can you keep you trap shut and withdraw your statement?

Why would I withdraw my statement? You've got to be kidding. How about you withdraw from your ridiculous position? I told you when you sent me messages that I would point out your position whenever I felt like it.

Any moderators notice this? He is intentionally making points that are completely off topic to derail the thread. Could someone please delete his post for me?

E. R. Olovetto:

It works fine,

Not on my computer. It is a pdf file, and apparently my Adobe is not setup correctly on my browser, even though I just reinstalled it. So how about you explain to those of us that can't open it how it is relevant?

Moderators barely enforce their own off-topic rule, so even if it wasn't relevant, such action would be highly incongruous. Anyhow, it is highly relevant for two reasons. One is that you exhibit that you can't follow through on your own "theories". The basic questions there are still unanswered, although I accepted your premise arguendo. Another is that your conception of "why we have rights" is utterly flawed.

There are only two ways that I know of that can obligate an adult to obey another adult. The first is through a contract, agreed to by both parties, with the terms clearly laid out. The other is when one is on the property of another.

Why? This is why I cited that thread related to Wittgenstein and Long on rule-following. I think that Reinach and the concept of social acts is important, indeed he focuses on promises and obligations first. I bet that even if you get PDFs working, you still won't give any decent response. It isn't that hard to get a computer to read PDFs.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

• | Post Points: 20

E. R. Olovetto:

One is that you exhibit that you can't follow through on your own "theories".

Please don't make baseless statements. "There are only two ways that I know of that can obligate an adult to obey another adult. The first is through a contract, agreed to by both parties, with the terms clearly laid out. The other is when one is on the property of another."

E. R. Olovetto:

Why?

Because those are the only two that I know of. Do you know of others? Or do you think contracts are not obligatory? Or do you think people are not obligated to do obey others when on the property of another? [edit] I guess a third would be violating the rights of another adult would obligate the aggressor to compensate the victim.

E. R. Olovetto:

It isn't that hard to get a computer to read PDFs.

If it were downloadable, I would have no problem.

I have decided to slightly change this after thinking about it some more. I would like to try this instead: Given this, I would like to have the following conversation with a so called police officer if I get pulled over for a so called traffic violation, assuming the LEO does not become too violent towards me: LEO: May I see your driver's license and registration? Me: Am I obligated to show them to you? LEO: Yes Me: May I ask how I am obligated? LEO: It is the law. Me: But isn't the law just some words written on paper by some strangers, which I never signed? LEO: Well... Me: I mean, isn't it true that the government was established by just a bunch of men getting together and claiming to rule over this area known as the United States just by writing some words on a piece of paper that no one signed? Is that a legitimate way to establish a business? LEO: Uh Me: If not, then isn't it true that the only reason I am obligated to show these to you is that you are a violent person with a violent organization and that you will hurt me if I do not? LEO: Uh Me: If not, am I free to go? LEO: Just let me see your driver's license and registration. Me: Because if I don't show them to you, you will hurt me, and that is the only reason that I should show them to you?...

MatthewF:

scineram:

You are also obliged to let your partner leave you for someone else, to which you have never agreed.

I usually ignore your posts becuase they are such obvious cries for attention but I can't resist.

Do you not see that the obligation to let your partner leave is the same obligation the cop has to let you leave?

Both cases you want others not to do something. Somehow one is an obligation on them, but the other is not.

Spidey,

Have you read about Lauren Canario?

scineram:

Both cases you want others not to do something. Somehow one is an obligation on them, but the other is not.

Is your head ok? I ran this by my 8 year old and she got it in 2 seconds. Are you obligated to follow the orders given to you by others?

If the answer is yes, then Spidey has to do what the cop says and his spouse has to do what he says.

If the answer is no the Spidey can ignore the cop and his spouse can ignore him.

So which is it?

 

MatthewF:

Spidey,

Have you read about Lauren Canario?

I have not heard of him.

http://sharebee.com/b57e30f2 hopefully, you can figure out how to download a file :rolleyes:

Spideynw:

There are only two ways that I know of that can obligate an adult to obey another adult.  The first is through a contract, agreed to by both parties, with the terms clearly laid out.  The other is when one is on the property of another.  However, if one does not wish to obey when on the property of another, one may choose to leave.  Of course, this implies that leaving is fairly simple.  For example, if one is a passenger in a car and the driver is going 100mph, and asks the passenger to do something the passenger does not agree to, the passenger would not be obligated to jump out of the car.  The passenger would have the right to not obey the driver, until the driver stops somewhere appropriate to let the passenger out.  This is assuming the passenger is not being aggressive towards the driver.

Given this, I would like to have the following conversation with a so called police officer if I get pulled over for a so called traffic violation, assuming the LEO does not become too violent towards me:

LEO: May I see your driver's license and registration?

Me: Am I obligated to show them to you?

LEO: Yes

Me: May I ask how I am obligated?

LEO: It is the law.

Me: But isn't the law just some words written on paper by some strangers, which I never signed? 

LEO: Well...

Me: I understand when I get a credit card that I get to review the terms, and if I agree, I can sign agreeing to the terms.  I never signed the constitution or anything else given to me by the government, except under duress.  I also understand if I am on the property of another, that they can ask anything of me, but if I do not agree that I can leave.  But this is public property, and as such no one owns it.  So isn't it true that the only reason I am obligated to show these to you is that you are a violent person working for a violent organization and that you will hurt me if I do not show them to you?

LEO: No

Me: Then could you explain to me how I am obligated?  Or am I free to go?

LEO: Just let me see your driver's license and registration.

Me: Because if I don't show them to you, you will hurt me, and that is the only reason that I should show them to you?...

The whole point is to reveal the gun in the room, and make it clear that he is the criminal, and I am the victim.  I would fully expect him to reveal his violent tendencies and threaten me to make me show them to him.  I may not get a chance to try it until I move to New Hampshire, but if I do make it up there soon, I would definitely try this there.

Don't ever do this spidey you know the gun is real, its on his hip. He doesn't carry it so people can carry out rational arguments with him.