Plenty of Youtubes of this already.
They may or may not, but let's be honest about why we participate in the delusions of costumed men. It has to do with violence, not legitimacy.
Obama throws tantrum!* Proud Day for Washington
- Thread starter dmnEPC
- Start date
Or as I said earlier, if nobody will sell you fuel, repair your vehicle, or even sell you a vehicle, good luck driving on public or private roads. No physical intervention required. No cages required.
All around MERKA stimulated in no small part by the national media, peasants argued with peasants regarding a myriad of issues that proved most divisive and distracting, meanwhile behind the curtain shit got real.
Wat agenda?
Wat agenda?
Those are all private transactions with private business entities, this is not the same as driving on a public road. It's feasible one can buy fuel with no intent to drive (maybe a gas generator in their cabin), get a car repaired (no proof they'll be driving it publicly), or sell you a vehicle (same as mechanic).
Again, what point are you trying to make? Because you're doing a god awful job so far.
EDIT: I suppose I see what you're trying to get at. You're saying that regulation of vehicles isn't comparable to regulation of guns because vehicle are regulated on usage, not on sale, whereas guns are regulated on sale (and to some extent, usage such as hunting, but that isn't necessary right now).
At this point, I'm kind of tired of arguing these points anymore, so I have nothing else to say other than that I stick with my core argument and the idea that traffic laws can't apply to some of you on public roads just makes no god damn sense.
My core argument is that state laws do not exist in the real world, they are imagined laws that you can never touch, taste, smell, see, or hear. A science experiment wouldn't even prove their existence.
The only thing that gives these laws their perceived legitimacy is an ignorance of volition. Its a mass delusion, no different from religion.
I am by no means an authority on this, but this is what I understand.
I can't speak for the rest of the world but here in Ontario we have a Highway Traffic Act. It is not a law.
According to the act, driving and travelling are different things. Driving is when you are doing commerce, and traveling is when you are using your private vehicle for personal use.
So unless you are doing commerce there is no need to have a driver's license, or register a vehicle.
So laws, to you, aren't real? What happens when you break these non-real laws and get taken to very-real jail with even-more-real Tyrone your big black cell mate?
I have no idea about the laws in Canada...
But whether you're driving or traveling in California, if you're going 75 in a 65mph area, you WILL get a ticket for breaking the LAW. I am failing to see how this can be argued at all.
And if you don't have a license when you get pulled over, you will receive further fines and citations (and probably get arrested for this specifically).
I just told you how it could be argued. Get a copy of whatever LAW, statute, act or whatever you would like to call it, and do some research if you are interested. It's actually quite interesting.
Are they real?
So you're saying the violence is real.
Like God is not real, but when Christians/Muslims invade your country because God told them to, then God is real?
But if you go 75 somewhere else, you won't get a ticket.
So the law, seems to me to be entirely geographical and dare I say, psychological, unless you believe that the scientific properties of motor vehicle transport are that different between say central america and California.
And in the Soviet Union, you would be kidnapped for listening to rock'n roll music. And in Iran you can be stoned to death for adultery.
What exactly is the point?
What is a law?
Why do I breathe?
Is it because my body is forcing me to breathe?
Why do I succumb to this force?
Why do I breathe?
Is it because my body is forcing me to breathe?
Why do I succumb to this force?
Lulz, no, not literally but maybe figuratively.
I'm to chickenshit to talk about this in public, even from another continent through a VPN... So anyone who wants to hear the answer to this, PM me. It's pretty good stuff.
Maybe I'm super dense and am just not seeing either of your guys' points...
If you get a speeding ticket because you broke the law regarding speed limits on a public highway, how is that not proof that in that jurisdiction, in that context, there is a law against what you did?
I'm not arguing that laws are objective, universal truths. I'm just saying there are very clearly specific laws for specific areas of the world that are enforced.
I can also make a law or two and claim jurisdiction. What are the facts that would support those claims?
You're assuming a lot of things are legitimate, and the point a few of us are making is that there is no basis for those assumptions.
You don't believe in God, right? Why do you believe in the legitimacy of laws? Where is that legitimacy derived from?
Don't worry, it's fine. You live in reality, whereas they live in theory. You're both right!
I guess you're familiar with the works of Locke, Bentham, Mill, Hobbes, Kant and the like, what's your view on their respective works? Who do you identify with, philosophically?
