> To whom?
The presidents oath to his office for one, the constitution, the rule of law, the citizens of the United States.
Easy to say whom/what/why. Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms.
The presidents oath to his office for one, the constitution, the rule of law, the citizens of the United States.
Easy to say whom/what/why. Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms.
You cannot be obligated to the inanimate. It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people, who you can be obligated to, but that brings us back to trying to figure out who those people are.
> the citizens of the United States.
Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? His entire campaign was ran on the promise of going off to do as he pleases, so there there was no such obligation established there.
Not everyone voted for him, to be sure, but they are primarily the group that wishes there was that obligation. They have not (to this point) established the obligation.
> Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms.
You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation. While that motivation can come from within or, say, social pressure, the president already has those satisfied. He doesn't care personally and anyone else he might want to impress supports him. That only leaves those who are willing to exert a compelling force, and that doesn't appear to exist.
Let's not confuse want of obligation with obligation. I assert that you are obligated to make me lunch each day! But we both know it's not happening. That is not how obligation works.
This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the constitution in this situations people are not talking about a piece of paper with writing on it.
> Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? ... They have not (to this point) established the obligation.
Can you layout the existing cases for him being obligated? You are not addressing any of the common/standard political theory arguments for it here. I can not tell what sort of political theory or government you are proposing here either so I can not respond to that.
>> Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms.
> You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation.
This seems like it is a semantics issue.
": the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)[1]
Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath.
"1. a moral or legal requirement; duty" [2]
yeah that applies too.
"An obligation is a course of action which someone is required to take, be it a legal obligation or a moral obligation. Obligations are constraints; they limit freedom. People who are under obligations may choose to freely act under obligations. Obligation exists when there is a choice to do what is morally good and what is morally unacceptable.[1] There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, whether as a tradition or for social reasons." [3]
Yeah that applies to the presidential case too.
So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion. You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism" or maybe "enforced action" and more often than not that is not how I have seen it used both in everyday life and political theory.
I think you are breezing over the existing "enforcement mechanism" and consequences or at least potential consequences for situations like this as well. That maybe because you have a political theory, that is not laid out here, that covers/makes that obvious though.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation
[2] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligat...
If the people involved believe in it and are willing to uphold it. It doesn't mean anything otherwise. You don't become obligated just because someone says so.
> Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath.
An oath assumes that the actor will cast judgement upon themself if they violate its intent. That goes out the window if the person doesn't care. You don't become obligated just because someone says so.
While many people do believe in an oath, giving it utility, not all people do. If they did, you could deal with all social problems with oaths. But the world is not so simple, I'm afraid.
> There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled.
Again, that only applies if all parties share the same norms, etiquette, and social expectations. Without that, there is no obligation. You don't become obligated just because someone says so.
> These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well
There are legal directives on paper, which may be what is confusing you, but paper is inanimate. Obligations can only be to people. There is no sign of people offering the motivation necessary for those laws to become obligations. You don't become obligated just because someone (or something) says so.
> So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion.
I am using it as defined by the dictionary, but perhaps you have your own pet definition? It seems you believe that all I have to say is: "You must make me lunch from now on!" and an obligation has been made. -- I fail to find any utility in that definition.
> You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism"
No. Not at all. The previous president was obligated without enforcement. He was compelled by his inner desire to do the right thing. The current president does not have that. It is true that enforcement is probably the only thing that would compel an obligation in this specific case, but that is not a precondition on the word, just the reality of the situation we are discussing.
While you have put in every effort to skirt around the theory, my take is that you must reject it. Your replies would not fit otherwise. On the basis of that that assumption,
- You are now obligated to make me lunch. I have asserted that you must do it.
But what does that mean? We both know you aren't actually going to do it. You aren't going to feel remorse when you don't do it. You will suffer no consequences if you don't do it. What, exactly, is trying to be communicated with the word "obligation"?
Per the dictionary, one must be compelled into an obligation. It is being compelled that adds sufficient information to justify the use of the word in that context. But where does it find information under your pet definition?
You can call this a political/government theory, but it does not move the conversation forward. How does a government work under this theory? What makes a legitimate government, when is rebellion the morally correct choice, what is the right to rule, etc under this theory. You do not need to layout everything at once but you would need to lay out enough to connect it to the and to my comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560855
And the conversation needs to step away from a particular definition of obligation and similar semantics, at least for me to go forward it.
It sometimes doesn't. Governments have failed many times throughout history.
But assuming a typical state of government affairs: Obligation. An obligation to oneself, to one's peers, and perhaps even to force. One is normally compelled to see government work – because they want it to, or, at very least, are afraid of the consequences if it doesn't.
None of that seems to apply in this case, though. So, again, if you remove the concept of being compelled, what is "obligation" trying to communicate?
This situation is about the federal government not following the laws it sets for itself.
The previous comment does not make a comparison. It questioned if anyone has pursued the federal government for not following through with cannabis enforcement, contrary to the expectations of the law, and wanted to know more about the outcome if so.
But maybe this is your roundabout way of saying "no"?
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's okay, but inventing nonsense to make that statement is, well, curious. I suggest not responding is the best way to communicate that you do not wish to participate, but to each their own, I suppose.
I clearly replied to your comment, not cma's.
> You are inserting your interruption into that.
There are no interruptions in a threaded discussion. cma can reply to your comment in parallel. I do appreciate you bringing your misunderstandings to light, though.
> let them speak for themselves
He can if he so wishes.
> or at least I am not interested in dissecting their comment's meaning with you.
Oh?
- "cma's question was to me"
On an open public forum all comments are written for all users by default. Only through dissecting meaning with me would you be able to determine this to be the case. Why lie?
I will refer you to the guidelines
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.