A hypothetical situation

Originally posted by CliffLandin
not for profit NGO

And you are saying that firefighters and emts would not be obliged to save lives in a "free society"? Are you just being argumentative (poorly) or are you just an idiot?

EDIT: You aren't speaking of a "free society" you are speak of anarchy, where people entrusted with public safety get to decide whether they will or they will not do their job. In your "free society" are police obliged to fight crime?

That is exactly what I'm saying, in a free society you cannot assign 'obligation' people may chose to take it on.

Freedom is the absence of force, a free society is based on this concept i.e. you cannot initiate force, threats of force and fraud against your fellow man.

Here's an intro: http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philosophy.of.Liberty.swf

(Someone said the music was creepy, you may have a volume control or your computer)

It's not anarchy because you have a right to defend yourself against the initiation of force, threats of force and fraud, that is the role of gummint.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Every time I read this it gets funnier and funnier. Please explain more about how your "free society" is going to function if no one is obliged to do anything.

People choose to take on obligations, you cannot assign them, but I think I've said that already.

Originally posted by Wajoma
In a free society they would not be obliged anymore than you would be obliged to cycle your salary back into the (Not for profit?) NGO.

Oh, and I do cycle money back into the organization that I work for, not because I am obliged, but because they do good work. I am obliged to do my job which, in turn, generates money so the organization can do the work that they do. I am obliged because they pay me to do it. That is how it works. A firefighter is obliged to save your life because he is paid to do that. There is a contract that says we will pay you and in turn you will do your job. It is an obligation. You are not a slave. You can quit and then you will have no obligation to do the job, but they will not be obligated to pay you. That is how a free society works.

Originally posted by Wajoma
People choose to take on obligations, you cannot assign them, but I think I've said that already.

However, there are also social obligations which are assigned to you as a citizen. Those are called laws. You can decide to not live by them, but that makes you an outlaw. You can decide to move or you can accept the social obligations.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
However, there is are also social obligations. You are obliged to live by the laws of the state and country that you live in. You can decide to not live up to those obligations, but you will pay the price for it or you will move. Society has obligations. It is not a free for all.

So you're not talking about a free society.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So you're not talking about a free society.

I am. The saying goes that freedom is not free. In your free society I would be free to do as I pleased, yes, regardless of the effect to other? If the answer is no, then you are adhering to social obligations. If you say yes, then you are speaking of anarchy. Not freedom. Who is free if anyone can do as they please? If I, being stronger than you, am free to take whatever I want from you, are you free?

Originally posted by CliffLandin
I am. The saying goes that freedom is not free. In your free society I would be free to do as I pleased, yes, regardless of the effect to other? If the answer is no, then you are adhering to social obligations. If you say yes, then you are speaking of anarchy. Not freedom. Who is free if anyone can do as they please? If I, being stronger than you, am free to take whatever I want from you, are you free?

I'll cut and paste from a previous post, saves typing and you must have skipped over it:

Freedom is the absence of force, a free society is based on this concept i.e. you cannot initiate force, threats of force and fraud against your fellow man.

Did the bolding help?

Originally posted by Wajoma
So you're not talking about a free society.

By the way, that video is crap. Voluntary mutual consent is an obligation. Plain and simple. The mutual consent part is an obligation to give in return for getting. You cannot get away from obligation. It is the foundation of society. When asking others to help defend you, you are obliging them to help you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'll cut and paste from a previous post, saves typing and you must have skipped over it:

Freedom is the absence of force, a free society is based on this concept i.e. [b]you cannot initiate force, threats of force and fraud against your fellow man.

Did the bolding help?[/b]

It is Schrodinger's cat. You are speaking of a freedom that is neither alive nor dead. This discussion is about the reality of social obligation and the right of a society to impose that obligation on people. Does the bolding help you to see that?

Your fantasy "free society" will never be and can never be because it denies human nature.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
By the way, that video is crap. Voluntary mutual consent is an obligation. Plain and simple. The mutual consent part is an obligation to give in return for getting. You cannot get away from obligation. It is the foundation of society. When asking others to help defend you, you are obliging them to help you.

Stunning critique, do you see that word you used there 'asking' that's an important distinction, you may 'ask' but you may not 'order', a small step to a better understanding of what it means to let the other fellow live his life free.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
It is Schrodinger's cat. You are speaking of a freedom that is neither alive nor dead. [b]This discussion is about the reality of social obligation and the right of a society to impose that obligation on people. Does the bolding help you to see that?

Your fantasy "free society" will never be and can never be because it denies human nature.[/b]

Oh, I see, I have been in the main responding to the original post, but you don't want to discuss how that applies to a free society, no worries.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Stunning critique, do you see that word you used there 'asking' that's an important distinction, you may 'ask' but you may not 'order', a small step to a better understanding of what it means to let the other fellow live his life free.

An obligation is not an order. It is a compact. An agreement. No one said that a firefighter is ordered to save someones life. I said that they are obliged to. They are obliged to as a part of their jobs. You said that in a free society they would not be obliged to. When you ask someone to aid you in your defense they can either agree or not. If they agree, then they are obliged to live up to their end of the agreement. In a free society or any society.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Oh, I see, I have been in the main responding to the original post, but you don't want to discuss how that applies to a free society, no worries.

Actually you were responding to my post when you said "You'd like to assign obligation willy nilly like so many here on this board,", not the original post. The post where I said that a firefighter was obliged to save lives.

There is no such thing as a free society by your definition. If you would like to discuss utopian society rather than actual societal obligations then we can do that.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'll cut and paste from a previous post, saves typing and you must have skipped over it:

Freedom is the absence of force, a free society is based on this concept i.e. [b]you cannot initiate force, threats of force and fraud against your fellow man.

Did the bolding help?[/b]

You've claimed above that nobody is obligated except by choice. But you also seem to think that everyone is obligated to not "initiate force, threats of force", etc. So what choices have been made by everybody such that everybody is obligated to not "initiate force, threats of force", etc?

Originally posted by bbarr
You've claimed above that nobody is obligated except by choice. But you also seem to think that everyone is obligated to not "initiate force, threats of force", etc. So what choices have been made by everybody such that everybody is obligated to not "initiate force, threats of force", etc?

That is more than an obligation, if you have a right to live your life free from the three 'f's then the other chap does also. If you have a right to force your morality on to the other fellow, to claim the product of his mind and effort, to specify what he may do with his own body, then that other fellow has that same right to do all those things to you. So 'obligation' is not a strong enough word, something more appropriate might come along.