Prove my existence within a state

Exactly. In this thread, it wouldn't matter if you were proving someone's existence within a state or proving someone's existence within a McDonald's double cheeseburger. The self and reality existing is unrelated to the actual argument at hand.

 

Which is?

 

How an individual relates, if at all, to the 'State' which is undefined

 

Yeah because what I said had nothing to do with this.

 

I don't understand what you mean by that. What exactly did you say that you are referencing?

 

That was sarcasm.

 

Alright, I'll try to approach this objectively (any bias I may have isn't obvious to me, point it out if I do).

Anyways, from what I've read of the very long thread, it seems there's already been a distinction made between the "State" and the "Government", mostly identifying Government as the people with the guns who coerce people into paying taxes, following laws, etc. The "State" seems to still be undefined, which seems to be a roadblock to the debate.

One thing that I do want to ask someone in your unique position as site owner, based on your previous responses on this thread, what do you consider Sythe.org to be in relation to your vision of a State? Sythe.org is run by a "Government" of sorts, which are the staff members who enforce the rules. Users pay "Taxes" involuntarily through generating advertising revenue. These are two features that a lot of people seem to attribute to the concept of the State.

The easy rebuttal that distinguishes the concept of the State from Sythe.org is that every user on Sythe.org has to voluntarily agree to join (contracts were mentioned ad nauseam earlier), whereas people are born, without their consent, to be under control of the State, and must follow the rules&practices of said State under duress.

With the exception of the consent of the person who may or may not exist in the State, and the person who uses Sythe.org, there are similarities between what most people seem to consider the concept of the State and the structure of Sythe.org. From your previous posts, it doesn't seem you have high regard for the State. I would ask if you could design your own sandbox reality without the State, what would it look like? - but in a sense, Sythe.org is that sandbox reality, and, at face value, bares similarities to the State.

I'm still working towards defining the "State", I don't know if you plan to dismiss everything I said above because the State is still not defined and I certainly haven't proven your existence in it, but responses to the above will narrow it.

 

So we have clarified that men with guns object to Alice. Let's say you are Alice. Men with guns hauls Sythe off to the 'judge' because they disapprove of Sythe's doing of X.

Logic for men with guns actions can be explained as this. They disapprove of Sythe's doing of X; Sythe's doing of X has come within their range and grasped their attention. therefore Sythe's doing of X influences them and others within Sythe's range.

You existed within men's state because your sphere of influence reached them. Likewise theirs reached yours. So you existed in each other's states. Neither of you existed within the judge's state because the judge was unaware of either of you actions and had to be notified by men with guns. At this time, you now exist within all three persons' states and must be judged on your doing of X because by being within others' states and doing X, you have done wrong.

You always exist in your state. You exist in other's states when you bring yourself there(hence being noticed by others). You can also exist in others' states if you brought there by others.



So basically, if I wanted you to exist in a state other than your own, all I have to do it be within your sphere of influence. If I wanted you to be in anyone else's state (say a judge) all I would have to do it bring your existence to attention.

If you exist, you are in a state, unless you avoid influencing anyone. By asking us to prove you exist in a state, we can assume you both exist and are influencing us. Now, you have brought yourself into others' states.

 

It's not possible to prove your existence within a state or anywhere else for that matter. You as yourself are not even able to prove that you exist within a state or anywhere else. To even come close to setting up proof that you exist you would have to have some axioms. Axioms allow you to do something in a semi consistent manner. But if there was no consistency in the first place then there would be zero need for proof of your existence or my own. Inconsistency would mean that nothing was predicable and that axioms don't even exist to begin with. We don't even truly have a definition of what existence really is. It all is about how one perceives things. So Sythe the question for you is are you able to prove we exist or that you even exist within a state. Because eventually all arguments or counter arguments would collapse on themselves.

 

If Sythe doesn't provide a definition for state, we are not acting unfairly by providing our own (check follow up below). I define a state as anything and everything as well as everywhere. Therefor sythe must exist somewhere within everything and everywhere. The only place out of this would be void, which is an impossible place for anything to exist in, therefor sythe cannot be there.

Follow up: my definition of state is based on the fact that just as a human is in a state of conciousness, a star millions of light years away is in a state of energy or a atom is in a state of movement or a planet is in a state of rotation. Everything in the universe is in a state of something. A state can be compared to the word "present". Whatever you are doing right now is the state you are in. State of relaxation, state of anger,etc. every object has present, as well as a past (previous state) and a present (future state)

 

If you define a state as anything and everything then this other place you're are talking about doesn't even exist within the first place and the place you're referring to as void wouldn't even exist your argument collapses on itself.

 

He stated that he wasn't speaking in a metaphysical sense.

 

Even in a truely physical sense, the entire universe is a state, just like even the USA, made of many states, is still a state itself.

 

To me, it seems like it works sort of like this:
You don't exist within a state because the state is a principle (that the moment a human being interacts with another human being, their actions should be moderated). But this doesn't really mean anything - what means something is that you will be coerced into acting a certain way, and punished or rewarded accordingly. So of course you will never experience a state, but you will experience its physical manifestation (the various limbs of the state).
So my point is that the existence of the state is a strange and almost counter-intuitive question (in the way it is being framed).

 

Sythe, have you ever (after being of legal age) been in contact with the government, in such a condition that you have benefited from their uses?

Such as

-Received income tax after filing your taxes?
-Applied for a drivers licence?
-Taken part in a government funded program?
-Even purchased a Government funded Public transit pass?

 

What's the point of this? It's just an argument of definition lol

 

You ought to clarify your non-existence. How can someone who doesn't exist or is non-existent even respond on a keyboard?