Prove my existence within a state

Go ahead. I'm interested to hear your arguments.

 

[Kerdo]

EDITNevermind this post)

You think, therefore you are!

Okay, obviousness aside, what exactly do you mean by "within a state"? I can prove my own existence to myself (and myself only) by the "Think therefore you are" argument, but I'll never be able to prove your existence in relation to me. Though assuming you exist, I can prove to you yourself that you exist, but I'll never know.

Sorry if that's jumbled up, I just woke up.

 

Sorry if that's jumbled up, I just woke up.

Ugg. You have to assume you, reality, and I exist in order to make the above statement.

My question is literal and legal, not metaphysical.

 

[Kerdo]

Ahaaa okay! I really am tired haha!

That's a good question. There is of course a kind of "social contract" that you follow within a state, but there's no actual signing of a contract for that. You are just assumed to accept laws and accept that if you break the law you suffer the consequences from the state. So in a way, by accepting these rules that the state have in their "social contract", you're within the state.

Edit: Oh hey, I see you already made a thread on the social contract.. Woops...

 

because without you the government has 1 less person to tax the fuck out of.

Don't spam please.

That's a good question. There is of course a kind of "social contract" that you follow within a state, but there's no actual signing of a contract for that. You are just assumed to accept laws and accept that if you break the law you suffer the consequences from the state. So in a way, by accepting these rules that the state have in their "social contract", you're within the state.

Not an argument. Firstly "social contract" is not a valid contract unless you can prove otherwise (it doesn't contain any of the five elements of a contract.) Secondly, any such contract already assumes my existence within the state, which makes your "argument" circular reasoning.

 

[Kerdo]

Yeah now that I think about it that is very circular.. I think I'll just come back to this thread later as I'm too tired to think!

But some food for thought: Does this state have to be a democracy where the people themselves elect the state? Or doesn't that matter.

 

[FireZ]

A state is defined as a territory. No matter where you go on this earth you have to be in some type of "territory". Where one territory ends another begins so you can't get "out" of territory's.

So even if you consider the entire world to only be one huge territory, you still are in one state.

We'll start with this and go from there.

 

[rickjames928]

A state is defined as a territory. No matter where you go on this earth you have to be in some type of "territory". Where one territory ends another begins so you can't get "out" of territory's.

So even if you consider the entire world to only be one huge territory, you still are in one state.

We'll start with this and go from there.

that's only because a government needs boundaries, instead of welcoming others we decline the chance at freedom. boundaries are set and fought to obtain more, millions of people have died in the name of boundaries... it is a worthless thing, this is all one planet.

 

A state is defined as a territory. No matter where you go on this earth you have to be in some type of "territory". Where one territory ends another begins so you can't get "out" of territory's.

I'm assuming you're defining territory as "some land"?

A state isn't defined as "some land" though. Did the "state of Australia" exist before 1901? The continent (the land) of Australia certainly did.

 

[Niini]

As I see it if you look at it from the government's perspective, if your on record i.e. they have you on paper (I started to list these but its pointless, you all know the various certificates rolls etc) you exist to the state. If they have no such records you don't exist.

 

As I see it if you look at it from the government's perspective, if your on record i.e. they have you on paper (I started to list these but its pointless, you all know the various certificates rolls etc) you exist to the state. If they have no such records you don't exist.

That's not an argument; in fact it begs the question by assuming a state exists as a premise.

I've asked you to prove my existence within a state, not to prove that my name appears on a piece of paper somewhere.

 

[Niini]

That's not an argument.

I can put the name of a corporation on a piece of paper and then put your name under it and claim you belong to my corporation. It doesn't make it true.

But that is it, when I was born I was effectivley registered with the government and that has proved my existence within the state ever since. The certificates and other government documents are the only things which prove our existence within the state.

They are unable to physically prove that I exist however unless they outdo themselves, collect some physical evidence of my existence. The only factor ensuring that I continue to exist within the state is that I wish to live something of a regular life, and as such must operate within the state's framework. Of course I have no coice but to live within that framework which is probably illegal for a number of reasons.

 

But that is it, when I was born I was effectivley registered with the government and that has proved my existence within the state ever since. The certificates and other government documents are the only things which prove our existence within the state.

Firstly, I'm not asking you to prove your existence within a state, for all I know you somehow do exist in a state. I'm asking you to prove my existence within a state.

These are still just pieces of paper. I never signed any of them. They are not legally binding (and necessarily cannot be); they are not valid contracts, thus they cannot bind me to anything.

Further, you need to prove that a state exists, before you attempt to prove that I exist within it.

 

[Niini]

Firstly, I'm not asking you to prove your existence within a state, for all I know you somehow do exist in a state. I'm asking you to prove my existence within a state.

These are still just pieces of paper. I never signed any of them. They are not legally binding (and necessarily cannot be); they are not valid contracts, thus they cannot bind me to anything.

No, because you were unable to operate a pen when you were born and so they have one of your parent's signatures on it, further it is not a contract but rather more of an affidavit confirming your birth, within the confines of the state. If you dont agree please explain why it's a contract rather then a confirmation of fact.

Further, you need to prove that a state exists, before you attempt to prove that I exist within it.

You assumed the state existed in the title, but a state is a territory under the administration of some kind of sovereign body. I cannot prove it's existence any more then I can prove the existence of a school or any similar administrative body.

 

No, because you were unable to operate a pen when you were born and so they have one of your parent's signatures on it,

Even if this were the case, I didn't sign it. Anything they signed expired the second I gained legal capacity.

further it is not a contract but rather more of an affidavit confirming your birth, within the confines of the state. If you dont agree please explain why it's a contract rather then a confirmation of fact.

So your evidence that I exist within a state is a 23 year old piece of paper that bears two signatures, neither of which is mine?

Even if the people who signed the paper swear that I exist within a state, it is still not evidence that I actually exist within a state. It is just evidence that they swear such.

You assumed the state existed in the title,

No, I didn't. 'a' is an indefinite article, it does not assume the existence of any definite article. I may say "prove that I have been to a convention about the merits of six dimensional toasted sandwiches", and this is also valid, and does not assume the existence of any such convention.

but a state is a territory under the administration of some kind of sovereign body. I cannot prove it's existence any more then I can prove the existence of a school or any similar administrative body.

If you cannot prove that it exists, then how can you prove that I exist within it?

 

[Niini]

Even if this were the case, I didn't sign it. Anything they signed expired the second I gained legal capacity.

May I ask why? It's not a document which requires a signature as it is essentially a document witnessing your physical presence. When you turn 18 you do not suddenly become a massless entity and dissapear into a puff of smoke. If I look at a child now, eighteen years from now I will still be able to claim "I saw that child however many years ago", the statement is still valid no matter the subject of the statement's age.

So your evidence that I exist within a state is a 23 year old piece of paper that bears two signatures, neither of which is mine?

Again this would have some relevence if it were a contract- If you dont agree please explain why it's a contract rather then a confirmation of fact.

Even if the people who signed the paper swear that I exist within a state, it is still not evidence that I actually exist within a state. It is just evidence that they swear such.

So it comes down to a debate over what we can consider as evidence or not. The state considers it an objective viable document, and the act of swearing such is evidence.[/quote]

No, I didn't. 'a' is an indefinite article, it does not assume the existence of any definite article. I may say "prove that I have been to a convention about the merits of six dimensional toasted sandwiches", and this is also valid, and does not assume the existence of any such convention.

Just because the type of noun has "indefite" in its particular classification, does not mean the meaning of the word it preceeds is also in question. Instead it conveys neutrality, disregarding the term, from wikipedia- "its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical" But this argument is not about grammar and I myself stated that I couldn't prove this and so I'll leave it to someone else. For the purpose of the other half of the argument I'll assume it to be true.

 

[Weasel2013]

A state is defined as a territory. No matter where you go on this earth you have to be in some type of "territory". Where one territory ends another begins so you can't get "out" of territory's.

So even if you consider the entire world to only be one huge territory, you still are in one state.

We'll start with this and go from there.

I disagree, because what of the cultures that shared lands? There were no 'territories' since no one owned any piece of land.



My personal thoughts...

It is impossible to prove you exist in a state that I don't exist in.

One of the above people mentioned paperwork...that can easily be forged. Also, how would you get the original copy of those documents from another state? You'd most likely receive pictures, or some other prove that they exist and are legitimate, but you'd never for sure.

Therefore, how do we prove you exist in a state?

First off, not regarding "does reality exist" "do we really exist" lines of thoughts (as that's for another thread...) I need to go the state you say you're in. Then I need to prove to myself I exist in that state, thus proving

1) It is possible to exist within that state
2) I exist in that state

I would probably go about this by finding several different sources..let's say the state was California for example. Go around asking people "What state is this?" Get a large sample size, and there would be one of my proofs. However, for the sake of accuracy let's say you wanted three proofs. I could use some technological methods in present day times;

-GPS
- Maps

I could also use things that are unique to the area you say you're in, such as landmarks.

Finally, I would have to have traveled there in some manner..therefore I could review how I got there.

-Plane ticket to California ( I'm probably going to land in California...)
- Suitcase full of California-suited clothing (I probably expected to go California) <-- I realize this isn't very solid proof


Therefore, i'd be confident I existed in your supposed state. Now I need to prove you do. As i've stated before, you have no way of knowing if documentation is fake, etc. The only sure way to know is if I saw you in the state. I'd have to go and locate you. I'm not sure how secretive you're being so..let's say you say...

What if I didn't tell you my location?

I'd have to discover it. Military technology; heat sensors, planes, etc. Human methods; sending out people with a picture of you to attempt to locate you, asking around if anyone knows you, actually giving documentation a chance (Phone book primarily) etc.

When I come face to face with you within the boundaries of the state, and I know I exist in that state, I can therefore be sure that you do too.

 

May I ask why? It's not a document which requires a signature as it is essentially a document witnessing your physical presence.

But you're not trying to prove physical presence within a geographical area. This would be trivial. You are attempting to prove my existence within a state, which is a completely different thing as I will explain below.

A state logically cannot be the ground; Firstly, for someone to issue decrees on behalf of the ground would make no sense, and, likewise, I cannot logically pay 40% of my income to the ground. Secondly, the ground was here long before the alleged 'state'. So the 'state' is something else, not the ground.

So your evidence that I exist within a state is a 23 year old piece of paper that bears two signatures, neither of which is mine?

Again this would have some relevence if it were a contract- If you dont agree please explain why it's a contract rather then a confirmation of fact.

I didn't say it was a contract; I was working under your assumption that it was a affidavit signed by two parties. The reason it doesn't prove my existence in a state is obvious: It's a testimony by two non-experts, rather than any kind of actual fact or evidence that would prove my existence within a state, or indeed the existence of a state to begin with.

To demonstrate: I could have two people sign a piece of paper swearing that the moon is made out of pink cheese, or that god exists, but this does not constitute evidence that either one is actually the case.

So it comes down to a debate over what we can consider as evidence or not. The state considers it an objective viable document, and the act of swearing such is evidence.

Well if you are going to reference 'the state' as a legal entity then you will first have to prove its existence. Secondly, it is not enough for a legal entity called 'the state' to simply say that so-and-so exists within it. There has to either be agreement between the parties or evidence of another kind (such as some sort of direct evidence) to prove such.

For example: I claim that you belong to my company, but this does not constitute evidence of such.

Just because the type of noun has "indefite" in its particular classification, does not mean the meaning of the word it preceeds is also in question. Instead it conveys neutrality, disregarding the term, from wikipedia- "its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical"

Right, it doesn't imply the existence of any concrete instance of the thing being described.

 

When I come face to face with you within the boundaries of the state, and I know I exist in that state, I can therefore be sure that you do too.

It's a good effort but you misunderstand the challenge.

I am not asking you to prove my existence within a certain geographical area. As you aptly point out, this is entirely possible, trivial even.

I am asking you to prove that I exist within a state -- which, if you read my earlier posts, logically cannot be the same thing as the ground.

 

[Weasel2013]

It's a good effort but you misunderstand the challenge.

I am not asking you to prove my existence within a certain geographical area. As you aptly point out, this is entirely possible, trivial even.

I am asking you to prove that I exist within a state -- which, if you read my earlier posts, cannot be the same thing as the ground.

I apologize. I didn't read your indefinite article post prior to typing my argument trying to prove you're in a geographical area.

You've given hints at what you define a state as..and the closest i've got is that you're looking for a political sense; so i'll go with that. (Since you said "I don't pay 40% of my taxes to the ground.)




Well, the every government sort of has these gripping tentacles on people. I'm not saying their malicious, but they are there, and you do feel them. Whether it be in the form of taxes or paperwork, or in the form of police knocking at your door.

The google definition I found was : A body politic, especially one constituting a nation

So i'm proving you're part of a body politic.

As you already said, you pay taxes. <-- Proof one.

Can you honestly say you've never encountered a public service in your environment? Police, fire trucks/men, libraries, public restrooms, etc? <-- proof 2 ; the existence of public services

Using prior knowledge, I know you're of legal age to vote; and even if you don't, you're of an age where you can witness an election and realize that it is an election. A democracy can only take place within a political body. <--- proof three

Therefore, you're in a state. Doesn't matter which state or where, but since you're part of a political body you're in "a state".