Prove my existence within a state

Sythe, is the point of this thread to prove that the sovereign is an imagined idea? That should be recognized by everyone. I think the greater point is that the existence of a state represents the general will of the populous to give up certain rights in exchange for others (i.e. natural "freedoms" in exchange for a legal and justice system).
If you choose not to believe in the state, you can stop paying taxes and set up a fortress and fight to break free of the state. However, as the general will is that the state should exist, you will inevitably lose. If the general will were for the state not to exist, however, you might win.

 

Yes however you do live somewher as you have stated you obviously exist. What I am saying is it is impossible to prove that you live within a state, but the fact that it impossible to prove that you live within a state does not mean that you don't live within a state.

What you have asked for is impossible to prove, but just because it is impossible to prove does not mean it is fact that you don't live within a state.

Esentually, I have proven that it is possible for you to live within a state.


And to Rsaccountrader, I believe this is an anaology situation on the existence of god. You could replace everything by removing within a state and adding does god exist type of thing.

Sythes equivalent question could be "can you prove god exists?"

My equivalent amswer would be that it is not possible to prove his existence, but it is still possible for him to exist.

Also, I am not switching the burden of proof, my question was more rehtorical. The most someone could possibly prove that it is possible for god to exist, whilist it is still possible for any other theory of how everything came to be to be true.

Sorry for any typos, I am on my ipod.

 

Let me just first point out that the only thing one can truly prove is that said individual exists (refer to Descartes' 'I think therefore I am) and that the individual has the ability to reason. One does not have the ability to logically reason that others exist or the physical world as we see it exists. Even though this is a moot point for the discussion we're having, and it is best to avoid this point while discussing "real-world" issues, it provides a clear answer to your original question (that your existence within a state cannot be proven).

This is where your logic becomes fundamentally flawed. There are two common arguments contrary to this point, one preferred by lawyers and the other by philosophers. I will outline the philosophical version as it is, in my opinion, easier to understand. (the legal argument is regarding passive consent)

When you are born, you are born at a spot on the earth designated to a certain state due to an agreement made between people before you existed. The agreement can be called a "social contract", a union through common consent. When you are born, you are not morally "obligated" to agree to the social contract and respect the government as the sovereign over your property. You may, in fact, attempt to remove yourself from the state at any period without violating any sense of morality. However, the state, as dictated to in the agreed upon in the social contract between its founders, will not allow you to remove your property from the state's control. This is because the state, as Hobbes described it, is a "necessary evil" in place to protect the general will of the people from the "natural chaos" of humanity outside of a state due to the propensities of the instinct of self-preservation.
Therefore, the state will put (possibly violent) punitive sanctions on you if you disobey their code of law or attempt to take control over what it considers its own land. The matter is nothing more than a physical power struggle.

The state has no non-self declaimed right to hold power over you, yet it is a necessary evil which you must accept or face the consequences of turning against it.

 

You have already debated what a state factually is, that it is a man made idea and therefore you object to all possible definitions as the definition itself is man made.

You ask a question that is impossible to answer, I have given you the next closest thing. I have proven that it is possible for you to be within a state. Your response was, "No you have not"? How is that at all debatable?

What I typed was all true, I challenge you to "prove" otherwise.

What is the point in having a debate on an unanswerable question? If the question is unanswerable then it would ultimately come down to opinion.

 

Who said it was fictional? That would be opinion.

 

No I said it is only proven to be a man made idea. Who is the one asking the other to prove a negative now? Just because something can not be proven does not mean it is fiction, to mean it is fiction, it would have to be proven as such, it is just the unknown. We don't know how the world came to be, but that doesn't mean all the theories are fiction, it just means we don't know. To say one of the theories is fiction would be demonstrating opinion.

 

I love how when you are wrong instead of debating you change to insulting the other person and restate what you previously said without further evidence, theories, or examples.

For something to be fiction it must be proven as such, otherwise it is just unknown. Everything that can not be proven is not automatically fiction which is your stance. You are asking me to prove it is not fiction, yet you have nothing supporting your opinion that everything that is not proven is fiction until proven otherwise. I have given an example of why everything is not fiction unless proven. You have just stated your opinion yet again with no supporting evidence, theories, or examples.

Once again, just because something isn't proven to not be fictional (double negative, I know, couldn't think of how to word it otherwise), does not mean that it is automatically fictional. That is like saying, can you prove that the earth wasn't created by god? No? Then it must have been created by god.

Proving a negative definition: (From your own sticky, you created) It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).

Also, I never claimed "x exists" I claimed it was possible for x to exist..

Also, you failed to realize that I did in fact present evidence via reason of example/analogy. (Also shown as a valid argument in your sticky, one of the three versions mentioned.)

And you talk about wasting someones time...

 

I have only a skimmed the thread. But have you yet defined "exist" or at least what your personal definition of the word is?

 

Cami3532, yes, anything may possibly exist absent evidence to the contrary. That doesn't mean it should be presumed to exist. The argument that you're making could be used for anything and is essentially pointless, because what you're stating is already known. The fact it is possible for x to exist does not mean it is possible for Sythe to exist within x. You have to first define x and how Sythe may exist within it. Then you can claim it's possible for him to exist within x. Then you can try to prove that x does in fact exist, and Sythe within it. You have not proved that it is possible for Sythe to exist within a state.

Without anything to support these theories there is no reason to suspect them accurate. Which would make them fiction, "Invention or fabrication as opposed to fact"

 

Cami: His point is that you cannot prove that a state physically exists and therefore has the ability to place laws on you from birth, which is true. The important hole in the argument is that the state exists conceptually in the general will of the people, not that there is a difference between not being able to be proved to exist versus being fictional.

 

This.

People always beleive that there is some higher dominance over what happend everyday.

 

I agree, but this is no hole. The number 1 exists and is written as "1" because the general will says so, yet the fact that "1" represents a single entity is by no means in existence physically.

The sovreignty of a government exists in the same way; just as 1 exists, just as all ideas exist. Sovreignty is an idea that is folliwed, it exists in the mind, not in reality.

 

Actually that is true, I picked a horrible example in one as mathematics is one of the few things that can be derived to be true.
Regarding my lecturing of epistemology: I in no means am attempting to lecture, but to argue. I don't necessarily believe my argument is true, but I haven't been able to conclude that yours is false and therefore remain persistant. As I am no expert on this topic, I will bring in erroneous facts and use invalid arguments.
That being said...
My issue with your argument lies with the comparison of the state to an invalid concept. You state that the state is an abstraction not tied to reality. I fail to see what you are defining as reality. In my present state, I have no way of knowing whether the world actually exists or is just part of my imagination, all I know that I exist as I have the power to think. Therefore, isn't believing that the world exists as absurd, on some levels, as believing that there is a God?