Prove my existence within a state

Posted this while back just wanted to see a rebuttal

 

It would actually be impossible, sensory inputs cannot be assumed to be correct, but that's beside the point.

I want to argue with you on this starting from a different standpoint.

The purpose of government: to provide heightened levels of life, liberty, and equality than those found in the natural, "chaotic", state.
Governments drawbacks: You are basically a slave to the government. You are forced to pay taxes and abide by their law code or face punishment. You have no choice in the matter of where you are born and therefore what sovereign area you are a part of.

Do you not agree with Hobbes' definition of government as a necessary evil? I do not see how a privatized, or a lack of a, governmental system would provide a better standard of life, liberty, and equality for all. If you can explain how such a system would, I, and many others, would completely change their views on this matter.

 

I don't think it's a contradiction to doubt that which I do not certainly know yet act on the assumption that what I believe to be true (what we see as reality) is true. It may be naive, but even if the world as I see it is imagined by me or in another state contrary to what is purported to be reality, I still care to debate on issues such as this, even if they serve no ultimate purpose, in order to educate myself.

I'll listen to it when I have a chance.

Of course I am biased, I have grown up in the US and taught classical liberalism. I argue my position, yet I am not unopen to new ideas. Of course, you too are biased and your vision clouded, as your goal of removing the immediate burden of taxes weights heavily of your ultimate decision of an ideal government and can impede your long-term vision. I will read up on your theories and listen to your piece.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I expected you to say, and this is where my true argument begins.
I understand the purpose of wanting the maximum amount of liberty in a society, and therefore hoping to have government solely for the purpose of defense or peacekeeping, (or even privatize those). However, don't you think it is important to help create equality in society? One of government's main purposes is to create equality through, in the US, services such as medicare, social security, and medicaid which help redistribute wealth. People are born unequal, even though they have no choice in the matter, and, through your system, it seems they would remain vastly unequal. Now I know our system today in no way ensures financial equality for all, but it does a decent job ensuring equal opportunity. To touch on a specific point, don't you think giving everyone at least a decent education is of the utmost importance to giving them relative equal opportunity? How would such a system be possible without government?

 

It's relatively irrefutable that your previous actions and experiences weight on your view of concepts, as they do for all of us. Even you do not refute the idea, as you blamed my so-called socialist view on my upbringing.

Ohh, so philosophy is now some elitist club? That statement is embarrassing. Also, I don't need you to tell me philosophy is too good for me, as I believe everyone should partake in philosophy. I also took a course in philosophy from a Columbia University philosophy professor, (Columbia founded the academic discipline of philosophy, so it is surely not too good for them), who told me I was very good at understanding, evaluating, and furthering philosophy concepts.

I have refrained from emotional, personal insults up until now while you have not. Yet while I can handle ignorance, I cannot stand arrogance and elitism.

I'm sorry you're disgusted by someone born in an inner city having the opportunity to succeed. You wouldn't be so disgusted if you were born in the inner city...

I don't want complete equality for all, that would be naive (refer to your points on communism). I, and most other political thinkers today, would like to see relative equal opportunity for all.

I ask you again: how would an education system work without government?

Unfortunately for you, you just delved into a topic in which I am, from what I can tell from your statement, most likely more educated, and this leads me to my next point.
Example:
Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, did not engage in immoral lending practices in 2008, as it was not a commercial bank. While Morgan Stanley held certain securities, called credit default swaps, which were grossly overvalued after the real estate bubble popped, the losses taken on such securities were not nearly enough to bring the company close to under. However, as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had failed, and the stock market had crashed, many clients began requesting money back from Morgan Stanley, at the rate of tens of billions a day. Morgan Stanley would have run out of capital if they had not received an investments from a Japanese bank and the US government, which restored confidence in the investors.

Without financial regulation, without the bailout, without government, the entire banking system would have failed, the dollar crippled, and the US destitute. So, without government, how would you regulate financial companies? Clearly, government regulation has always been necessary. How would you provide financial regulation without government? Would you suggest making immorality against the law? That drastically contradicts your other ideas.

 

OK, fine. I was about to do the same for the same reason.

Incorrect, but ok. As I said before, I'm debating my side of the argument. It doesn't mean I'm not absorbing your proposals.

Ask someone unbiased to read through the entire argument and determine who sought to humiliate more and whose matter was more unpleasant and demeaning.

I don't have anyone in real life who is my enemy, or even anyone who doesn't like me (well, teenage sister at times...but that's nature), so I doubt you wouldn't like me there. Even through your demeaning tones and unpleasant arguments, I'm able to separate how someone might act in a debate versus what type of person they are.

Once I had gotten through the social arguments, I would have proceeded to ask you two questions:
1. If there as no government, as the population sees as an all-powerful, generally uncorrupt machine of good, how would laws be properly enforced? With security services acting on profits, what is to stop them for doing immoral acts for the highest bidder? And what's to stop them if they decide to enslave the population?
2. How would you implement such a system?

Think about the first question and its corollaries. Losing the sense of the "all powerful government" would cause massive problems in raising armies (do I actually care anymore if Texas gets invaded, living in New York? Everyone on the same sentiment ends up getting conquered), enforcing laws (see above), and many other issues of great importance to the security of life and liberty.

While I too found debating against you unpleasant, I see no reason for you to hold a personal grudge against me. I agree that this debate should be ended, but I see no reason for you to end communication with me over a heated difference of political views. >.>

 

A state is just an imaginary title that we place on an ever-changing amount of land with inhabitants that form and abide by a set of laws which are inforced by an organized government.

Surely, the definition of a state must be dynamic, as it has to accommodate the many changing aspects of global politics?

If this is true, then one wouldn't be able to form a real resolve on the issue because one wouldn't have a solid platform from which to build their argument.

You'll have just as hard a time proving that what you call your 'state' exists, as you would proving that you exist in a state. (This is worded fairly poorly, my apologies.)

 

The reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of psilocybin.
You only exist in my mind, in a fake dimension.

 

A state is formed by a social contract, and a social contract was created by two non-experts as you have already mentioned. That means that technically a state doesn't exist because it is a following, and technically cannot be proven to exist. If a state cannot be proven to exist, therefore, I cannot prove your existence in something that might not exist.

Or..

So basically, a state follows the appeal to popularity fallacy.

EDIT: Someone said the same exact thing two posts above mine.

 

What do you mean by showing you it "With your signature on it"?

My argument:

You exist, you are made up of matter. A state could be defined as a three dimensional "block" of space. (Or more if there are the 10 or 11 dimensions string theory proposes). Regardless, your particles of matter are inside one of these "blocks".

I think that's what you're asking, but I'm not sure if that was the question exactly.

 

The government is an idea, an institution. You're not actually paying the "block of matter", you're paying the workers, like the policemen and firefighters, and paying for materials, (Which essentially are just a block of matter).

 

Sythe, have you read Stefan Molyneux's books? If so, what did you think?

I figure this is the most relevant place to ask you.

Also, thanks for the awesome site

 

Where there is no anarchy, there is a state. Without a state, man lives in a "brutish existence" (Hobbes). In other words, the lawlessness that is present in anarchy promotes a constant, almost unreasonable danger to each and every human at all times due to the reasons that Hobbes also outlines: competition, diffidence, and glory. Essentially, all humans, with no state to keep them in check, will always try to get one step ahead of everyone else. The means through which each human attempts to get this step, however, normally involves putting others at a disadvantage in order to gain an advantage.

Australia is a state because it is not in a status of anarchy. It is not lawless, therefore there are laws. Using this logic, a legitimate state MUST exist in order for these laws to have any effect at all.

Your existence in this state is proven by the fact that you owe your general safety and welfare to the state. The state has accomplished its primary purpose of protecting its citizens. While you enjoy this security, you are confirming your place in the state.