Prove my existence within a state

[Rsaccounttrader]

Well this is easy to test. If it is a contract then show me the contract.

In the case of the United States:

Ok, so to clarify, regardless of your opinion of reasoning by analogy: You are precisely saying that (irrational) belief in a state causes people to be civil, are you not?

All but the irrational part. How is it an irrational belief? It's just a belief.

 

In the case of the United States:

Can you not read?

In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.


Not signed, only witnessed. And, I might add, all those witnesses (and not signatories) are dead. And, even if they weren't, the contract would only be between themselves.

Case closed.

Ok, so to clarify, regardless of your opinion of reasoning by analogy: You are precisely saying that (irrational) belief in a state causes people to be civil, are you not?

All but the irrational part. How is it an irrational belief? It's just a belief.

It's an irrational belief because you hold it on faith (this is: without evidence) and in spite of reason and evidence to the contrary.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Not signed, only witnessed. And, I might add, all those witnesses (and not signatories) are dead. And, even if they weren't, the contract would only be between themselves

Yes, they witnessed and therefore agreed to the terms set by the constitution. Therefore, it is an agreement between men. Contract was the wrong term, I meant it was an agreement. There is no point arguing over definitions of terms, the point is that the country was founded by the direct agreement of those present (the signers) and the indirect agreement of all inhabitants at the time. (they didn't protest it on a large scale)

It's an irrational belief because you hold it on faith (this is: without evidence) and in spite of reason and evidence to the contrary.

What is this "reason and evidence to the contrary". I agree that the state does not exist physically; there are no borders cut into the ground. The state is an idea that is followed and appreciated by many. While it may limit one's freedoms at the most basic level, most would argue that it serves as a necessary evil, providing more good than bad.

Again, please show me evidence "to the contrary" of the state being a rational belief.

 

[Josh0is0here]

I can’t prove you exist within a state. Since a state is a mindset held by a certain individual and varies from person to person. However, someone could attempt to prove me wrong. Given the fact, they believe their mindset to be correct, this would become a circular discussion because both sides won’t be able to prove their side with solid proof but rather concepts. Thus it can be said that it not about what you think you know. But rather what you actually know.
__________________

 

Yes, they witnessed and therefore agreed to the terms set by the constitution.

A witness is:

One who is called upon to be present at a transaction, as a wedding, or the making of a will, that he may thereafter, if necessary, testify to the transaction.

One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it, for the purpose of confirming its authenticity by his testimony.

- Black's law dictionary

A witness is not a party to the contract. It has never been the case at any point in 2000 years of contract law that a witness is a party to the contract. It is categorically a false statement you have made.

Therefore, it is an agreement between men. Contract was the wrong term, I meant it was an agreement. There is no point arguing over definitions of terms, the point is that the country was founded by the direct agreement of those present (the signers)

And here you go on to insult me by begging the question. You have not shown that "a country" was founded, nor that such a thing can even exist. So far all we have is that some people got together in a room and legally witnessed the creation of four pieces of paper.

and the indirect agreement of all inhabitants at the time. (they didn't protest it on a large scale)

This is too ridiculous even to bother commenting on. By this criteria of consent you have just justified 8000 years of slavery.

What is this "reason and evidence to the contrary". I agree that the state does not exist physically; there are no borders cut into the ground. The state is an idea that is followed and appreciated by many. While it may limit one's freedoms at the most basic level, most would argue that it serves as a necessary evil, providing more good than bad.

Again, please show me evidence "to the contrary" of the state being a rational belief.

Debating with you is not pleasurable as you engage in a continual filthy redefinition of terms and moving the goal posts.

To answer your question: belief in the state is irrational. What you have here done is moved the goal posts to make your position the belief in the efficacy of others believing in the state -- which is a different argument.

 

[Relevance]

Debating with you is not pleasurable as you engage in a continual filthy redefinition of terms and moving the goal posts.

In all fairness, the 1-line prompt you initially provided is vulnerable to these sorts of arguments.

I consider myself a decent reader and have sifted through the past several pages and I am still struggling to understand the purpose of this thread. Here's what I've gathered.

1. You would define the state as a socially-binding contract that was never in effect legitimized by what you consider "legal" consent from both parties.

Without deliberately moving the "goalposts", there are many words here that can lead to ambiguity, even after presuming that one agrees with this definition of the state (which all in all, reads a little conveniently and specifically for my taste). What does it mean to be socially-bound to something? Is it possible to terminate this contract? In what ways does this contract manifest itself? Is a unanimous decision required for a group of people to effectively give "consent" to something? Do groups exist at all? Without a state, do you define legality in common-law terms?

If I have misinterpreted, please enlighten me on your intended purpose so I can have a more educated response. Or hell, maybe I'm just completely wrong and belong somewhere else...

 

In all fairness, the 1-line prompt you initially provided is vulnerable to these sorts of arguments.

What does his changing of his argument mid-stream have to with the one line challenge? -- He's not even arguing in favour of the existence of a state, he's arguing in the affirmative on the efficacy of others believing in the existence of a state -- which is a completely different and irrelevant debate.

I consider myself a decent reader and have sifted through the past several pages and I am still struggling to understand the purpose of this thread. Here's what I've gathered.

1. You would define the state as a socially-binding contract that was never in effect legitimized by what you consider "legal" consent from both parties.

Apparently you are unable to read:
http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=7363231&postcount=23

If I have misinterpreted, please enlighten me on your intended purpose so I can have a more educated response. Or hell, maybe I'm just completely wrong and belong somewhere else...

Yes. Try reading the thread again, and understanding each side's argument before posting.

 

[Relevance]

What does his changing of his argument mid-stream have to with the one line challenge?

Without distinct guidelines, arguments and even premises become a little more dynamic (not to support his particular argumentation style in any way).

Apparently you are unable to read:
http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=7363231&postcount=23

Well I haven't been here long enough to know the context of this "God thread", but if I were to guess, people constantly try to shift the definition of it. I feel that setting premises helps avoid semantics, and hence this is standard practice in formal debating. After reading that post more clearly, I better understand your stance on this prompt but what you are asking seems to contradict your counterpoints. Basically, I haven't even seen any fundamental "goalposts" being set so the question really asks you to construct them. I feel that everyone here, including you, has at least an idea of what a common "perceived" sense of state is, and it might be useful to begin by debunking this perceived state.

Let's say hypothetically, I define a "state" as any group of people where the majority believe they live in said "state". This definition isn't particularly useful, or even particularly true, but provides a stable definition in which one could presumably reside in.

Yes. Try reading the thread again, and understanding each side's argument before posting.

Honestly, it's hard to form sides without even forming the basic premises.

 

Well I haven't been here long enough to know the context of this "God thread", but if I were to guess, people constantly try to shift the definition of it. I feel that setting premises helps avoid semantics, and hence this is standard practice in formal debating. After reading that post more clearly, I better understand your stance on this prompt but what you are asking seems to contradict your counterpoints. Basically, I haven't even seen any fundamental "goalposts" being set so the question really asks you to construct them.

It is not a contradiction. It is perfectly valid to point out when someone is shifting the goalposts purely in the context of their own argument -- and this has nothing to do with the initial challenge.

I agree that we should put up some general parameters for definitions. I had hitherto said 'within reason', but I will make it more explicit here:

My limitations on the definitions I'll accept is that the definition has to be logically consistent (both generally and within the frame of the opposition's argument), and that it cannot contradict basic logical proofs I already have. So for example one proof I have is that 'the state' cannot be the ground (see the not-the-ground argument from earlier). And for another example, the opposition could only define the state as a rock if, in their argument, the behaviour of the state was consistent with that of a rock.

 

[iToke420]

Whichever state you are in, every keystroke you make proves your existence, every time your heart beats, or you breath in air and blow out carbon dioxide.

 

Whichever state you are in, every keystroke you make proves your existence, every time your heart beats, or you breath in air and blow out carbon dioxide.

Read the thread.

 

[iToke420]

Well, that's impossible! A 'state' does not exist because it is an imaginary boundary. Sure there's trillions of papers printed each day saying that a state is in fact a reality, but there's no topographical features that define a state or really any features that define any land mass to any group of people for that matter. In a bit more advanced terms, the World belongs to nobody besides common knowledge. I know that I currently am placed within the walls of the United States invisible land boundary and within the walls of the Floridian sub(?)-boundary, and because I am renting, I am within another boundary of my own home. All these invisible pin-points on where you exist are impossible to track for yourself, much less a stranger. Take someone in Saudi Arabia, we accept the United States as a whole of people, and to us they are foreign because they are out of our whole of people, but in all actuality, anybody outside of the boundary you are currently in is a foreigner. I'd have as much luck proving you exist in a state as I would finding my great-aunt whom I've never met on a trip to Tokyo.

 

[Orvus]

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.

The state is an Idea if you arn't attaching it to some sort of physical boundery, rather than a political boundery. You cannot prove an idea exists. You cannot prove That I cannot fly. You are not an idea, therefore you do not exist within the state. However, If you voice your political opinions about said state, while inside it's Physical and political bounderies, do you not prove that you exist in the state with both your physical self and your political ideas?

 

The state is an Idea if you arn't attaching it to some sort of physical boundery, rather than a political boundery. You cannot prove an idea exists.

I'm not questioning the existence of an idea. I am requiring proof of the 'state' to which I am allegedly chattel.

You cannot prove That I cannot fly.

Irrelevant. I am not asking anyone to prove a negative.

If you voice your political opinions about said state, while inside it's Physical and political bounderies, do you not prove that you exist in the state with both your physical self and your political ideas?

No. You are assuming the existence of the state to make your argument. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question )

Also: What are political boundaries, and how does one get in and out of a political boundary?
And: If we suppose that physical boundaries define the state, then the physical boundary of my skin with the outside world defines a state. Therefore even if your argument weren't circular reasoning we would have to conclude individual sovereignty which would preclude 'the state'.

 

[buysell]

Alright, first I'm going to have a go at defining a state. Tomorrow morning I'll come back and attempt to tackle the rest of the question.

A state is a geographical boundary that is resided upon/has been physically claimed by a group of people, the majority of whom legally agree upon the fact that they are indeed in such a state, which exists under a certain name.
In effect, a state is a simply a defined geographical area at a certain point in time, with a specific name/title.

Edit: Gah, can't sleep now. A necessary addition to this definition is the concept that a state cannot exist within a larger state. That's to say, under this definition three people in Australia cannot stand in a sandpit and name it the State of Sand, because they are part of a larger state.

 

A state is a geographical boundary that is resided upon/has been physically claimed by a group of people, the majority of whom legally agree upon the fact that they are indeed in such a state, which exists under a certain name.

Legal agreement would require a contract.

So if you want to use this definition in an argument you'll have to demonstrate that members of the state have entered into a contract.

A common law contract (verbal or written) has five elements:
Intention, offer and acceptance, consideration, legal capacity and consent.

This would preclude citizenship at birth, compulsory taxation, conscription, citizenship by silence, and citizenship by force or majority. (Just to list a few.)

In effect, a state is a simply a defined geographical area at a certain point in time, with a specific name/title.

Edit: Gah, can't sleep now. A necessary addition to this definition is the concept that a state cannot exist within a larger state. That's to say, under this definition three people in Australia cannot stand in a sandpit and name it the State of Sand, because they are part of a larger state.

In which case your definition would no longer be applicable to things you would probably like to categorize as states: such as the united states, and the united kingdom -- As these are states containing states.

 

[buysell]

I tried to post this before work this morning but sythe was down, so I'll just copypaste it:

Legal agreement would require a contract.

So if you want to use this definition in an argument you'll have to demonstrate that members of the state have entered into a contract.

A common law contract (verbal or written) has five elements:
Intention, offer and acceptance, consideration, legal capacity and consent.

This would preclude citizenship at birth, compulsory taxation, conscription, citizenship by silence, and citizenship by force or majority. (Just to list a few.)

In which case your definition would no longer be applicable to things you would probably like to categorize as states: such as the united states, and the united kingdom -- As these are states containing states.

I'd imagine that any legal document concerning the state other than those signed under duress or by proxy would affirm the individual's belief in the state and thus the state itself. This could be an organ donor application, a drivers licence application, getting a passport, or in the case of migrants, actually signing the contract which states they want to become a member of the state.

And no, I'm not too sure about the last bit concerning definition of states. I'll leave it as is for the time being, simply because I don't have time before work to deal with all the questions that would arise from changing the 'there cannot be a state inside a larger state' to something like 'legitimate legal intention to create a state'.

 

I tried to post this before work this morning but sythe was down, so I'll just copypaste it:


I'd imagine that any legal document concerning the state other than those signed under duress or by proxy would affirm the individual's belief in the state and thus the state itself. This could be an organ donor application, a drivers licence application, getting a passport, or in the case of migrants, actually signing the contract which states they want to become a member of the state.

Affirming an individual's belief in the state does not affirm the existence of the state except under your recursive definition.

The definition that "the state is people believing in the state" can be shown to be semantically meaningless by defining it using a Chomsky context-free grammar. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar )

Grammar:
(State) ::-> One or more people believing in a (State)

Statement:
People believe in a State therefore a State exists.

Expansion:

People believe in a (State) therefore a (State) exists.

People believe in a (One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(... to infinity ...)))) therefore the (One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(... to infinity ...)))) exists.

And no, I'm not too sure about the last bit concerning definition of states. I'll leave it as is for the time being, simply because I don't have time before work to deal with all the questions that would arise from changing the 'there cannot be a state inside a larger state' to something like 'legitimate legal intention to create a state'.

You'll have to find a non-recursive definition, for the reasons above. Namely, that a recursive definition imparts no meaning, and therefore does not satisfy the requirements of a definition.

 

[buysell]

Affirming an individual's belief in the state does not affirm the existence of the state except under your recursive definition.

The definition that "the state is people believing in the state" can be shown to be semantically meaningless by defining it using a Chomsky context-free grammar. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar )

Grammar:
(State) ::-> One or more people believing in a (State)

Statement:
People believe in a State therefore a State exists.

Expansion:

People believe in a (State) therefore a (State) exists.

People believe in a (One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(... to infinity ...)))) therefore the (One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(One or more people believing in a(... to infinity ...)))) exists.

You'll have to find a non-recursive definition, for the reasons above. Namely, that a recursive definition imparts no meaning, and therefore does not satisfy the requirements of a definition.

Well, my definition of a state requires the belief of it by the people who are residing in it. Under my (probably wrong in some way) definition, a state does not exist unless it is named and believed in by the people inside it. You could apply that thought process to any conceptual idea otherwise; a government does not exist, a family does not exist etc.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm fairly sure I'm wrong somewhere here, I need to brush up on my debating skills...

 

Well, my definition of a state requires the belief of it by the people who are residing in it. Under my (probably wrong in some way) definition, a state does not exist unless it is named and believed in by the people inside it. You could apply that thought process to any conceptual idea otherwise; a government does not exist, a family does not exist etc.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm fairly sure I'm wrong somewhere here, I need to brush up on my debating skills...

A family is a group of genetically related people who agree to live together. -- The members don't have to believe they are in a family for it to be a valid abstraction. Likewise a company or partnership is a group of people who agree to do business under a certain set of pre-agreed upon rules. These are both valid abstractions.

It's not that you can't have abstractions, it's just that an abstraction cannot be defined in terms of itself.