Prove my existence within a state

In the case of the United States:

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

 

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)

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.

 

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.
__________________

 

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...

 

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

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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'.

 

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...