Prove my existence within a state

[Imagine]

So which is it? So far you have offered the following definitions:
"A block of matter"
"An idea"
"The workers, police and firefighters"

When you settle on a definition, you are still required to prove my presence within it...

So which is it?

I'll start over. Everything in the world is made matter (Or antimatter, but let's count that out). You currently are inside a block of matter. This block has defined boundaries, your skin and hair.

A state is made up of many blocks of matter(Other people), and just earth's territory. So unless you live in unclaimed land, you live inside a state and pay taxes to the government. The government is really just an idea (a system), as the money you pay really goes to other "blocks of matter" so they can do their jobs to keep you safe.

As you are benefiting from their services, and you are (hopefully) contributing something to the idea of the government, you are an active participant inside your countries government (Or just simply make up society, which is part of the idea of government - Society still pays taxes and funds the government). Everything controlled by the government is a state, so therefore you exist within the state of your government.

 

I'll start over. Everything in the world is made matter (Or antimatter, but let's count that out). You currently are inside a block of matter. This block has defined boundaries, your skin and hair.

A state is made up of many blocks of matter(Other people), and just earth's territory. So unless you live in unclaimed land, you live inside a state and pay taxes to the government.

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because everything is made out of matter, I have to pay money to someone doing business as "the government."

The government is really just an idea (a system), as the money you pay really goes to other "blocks of matter" so they can do their jobs to keep you safe.

Contradicts your first statement. As I said before, you must pick whether or not your definition of 'the State' is a block of matter or an idea.

Further, if the people doing business as 'the Government' were interested in keeping me safe, then they wouldn't be constantly threatening my life when I disagree with them.

Further, if they were interested in protecting my property then they wouldn't be the first ones trying to take it.

Further, if this were a voluntary arrangement then I'd be able to opt out of their 'system' or 'idea.' (Being as we've already established the state is NOT the ground, this would not involve moving.)

Everything controlled by the government is a state, so therefore you exist within the state of your government.

And this is just a perfect example of circular reasoning. "Everything controlled by god is god's creation, so therefore god exists, and you exist within god's creation."

Not only have you failed to give a coherent definition of the State, you have also repeatedly failed to demonstrate its connection to me (whatever it is.) In fact you have failed for the most part to build any sort of logically consistent argument to back any of your points. And everytime I post a rebuttal to your stupidity, I just get a completely different set of goalposts back from you. All you have posted thus far is bigotry. I suggest, if you don't have an informed argument to make, that you let someone else have a go.

 

[N Papadopulos]

So, I have just completed reading all ten pages of this and find some of your counters quite amazing. I'm curious, can YOU prove your existence within a state and you're just trying to see if we can?

 

So, I have just completed reading all ten pages of this and find some of your counters quite amazing. I'm curious, can YOU prove your existence within a state and you're just trying to see if we can?

No. And it is a big problem for the people pretending to administer 'the Law.' This has been used in court numerous times. There is really really no basis for the proclaimed jurisidction of most courts. (I say most, because there are courts of universal jurisdiction working on the basis of natural rights, for example in the Hague.)

For more info: http://marcstevens.net/

 

[N Papadopulos]

No. And it is a big problem for the people pretending to administer 'the Law.' This has been used in court numerous times. There is really really no basis for the proclaimed jurisidction of most courts. (I say most, because there are courts of universal jurisdiction working on the basis of natural rights, for example in the Hague.)

For more info: http://marcstevens.net/

Wow thankyou for the site. I find that very interesting (much more so than chemistry) looks like I have some reading to do.

 

[bastz]

Reposting mine as I like to be countered and ,Sythe, your counters are absolutely astounding.

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.
__________________

 

Reposting mine as I like to be countered and ,Sythe, your counters are absolutely astounding.

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.
__________________

This is neither a definition of the State, nor proof of its existence, much less proof of my existence within said hypothetical entity.

So that you can better see how your argument is circular reasoning ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ) and presents no facts or logically sound arguments, I have replaced all references to the State with God.

See how it still says exactly the same thing, namely that it asserts (without evidence) that a hypothetical entity is necessary for order to exist amoung men, then it says "there is order, therefore this proposed entity must indeed exist."

Also note that the below is actually used by Christians.

Where there is no hell, there is a God. Without God, man lives in a "brutish existence" (Guy). In other words, the immorality that is present in hell promotes a constant, almost unreasonable danger to each and every soul at all times due to the reasons that Guy also outlines: evil. Essentially, all souls, with no God to keep them in check, will always try to get one step ahead of every other soul. The means through which each soul attempts to get this step, however, normally involves putting other souls at a disadvantage in order to gain an advantage.

Australia is a Kingdom of God because it is not in a status of hell. It is not without morals, therefore there are morals. Using this logic, a legitimate God MUST exist in order for these morals to have any effect at all.

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

Aside from your argument being circular reasoning, the assertion it makes is also on its own merits, illogical. Basically the assertion is that "people are evil and therefore we need a State to make them be good." But if people are evil, then any organization comprised of people will also be evil. All the assertion really boils down to is this "if people with guns don't tell other people what to do, then people with guns might tell other people what to do." It's simply irrational.

 

[Imagine]

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because everything is made out of matter, I have to pay money to someone doing business as "the government."

Contradicts your first statement. As I said before, you must pick whether or not your definition of 'the State' is a block of matter or an idea.

I'm defining the state, and government to be two different things. The state is the actual matter in which you reside, the government is the system meant to keep this state under control.

Further, if the people doing business as 'the Government' were interested in keeping me safe, then they wouldn't be constantly threatening my life when I disagree with them.

They aren't interested in keeping just you safe, they are interested in keeping the majority of the population safe. Therefore, while putting a serial killer in jail won't keep him safe, it'll keep the majority of the people safe.

Further, if they were interested in protecting my property then they wouldn't be the first ones trying to take it.

Further, if this were a voluntary arrangement then I'd be able to opt out of their 'system' or 'idea.' (Being as we've already established the state is NOT the ground, this would not involve moving.)

They're not trying to directly take your property, they need funding to be able to keep you and the population safe. Also, this isn't really a voluntary arrangement. Regardless of if you want to be included or not, you're a citizen of your country, you receive protection from the police, you are able to use hospitals, firefighters save lives, one can't take without giving back.

If you were really desperate to opt out of this system, you would be required to move locations, to make space for somebody else that might like to be in the system. (Although we have defined that the state is not the ground, the house you live in was built with the intentions that whoever resides there would pay taxes, and receive protection from the state).

And this is just a perfect example of circular reasoning. "Everything controlled by god is god's creation, so therefore god exists, and you exist within god's creation."

Not only have you failed to give a coherent definition of the State, you have also repeatedly failed to demonstrate its connection to me (whatever it is.) In fact you have failed for the most part to build any sort of logically consistent argument to back any of your points. And everytime I post a rebuttal to your stupidity, I just get a completely different set of goalposts back from you. All you have posted thus far is bigotry. I suggest, if you don't have an informed argument to make, that you let someone else have a go.

Other's can still have a go. I still think the same thing now than I did before, but English isn't my first language so I usually do not make myself clear, and/or I miss to include something or other.

I responded in red.

 

I'm defining the state, and government to be two different things. The state is the actual matter in which you reside, the government is the system meant to keep this state under control.

You'll have to elaborate your definition further. So the State is just the ground, by your definition, but the Government is people with guns who control the ground? Does the ground need to be kept under control? I'm confused...

They aren't interested in keeping just you safe, they are interested in keeping the majority of the population safe. Therefore, while putting a serial killer in jail won't keep him safe, it'll keep the majority of the people safe.

And this would be why the people doing business as the state start wars of aggression and shoot you for having the wrong sort of vegetation in your pocket. Yeah real safe...

The people doing business as "the Government" were the NUMBER ONE cause of unnatural death in the 20th century. NUMBER ONE. I need someone to keep me safe from them!

Also, this isn't really a voluntary arrangement. Regardless of if you want to be included or not, you're a citizen of your country, you receive protection from the police, you are able to use hospitals, firefighters save lives, one can't take without giving back.

As you freely admit: It's not voluntary. Citizenship is involuntary.

You go on to assert that slavery is good because the slave owner provides medical care to his slaves, much as the farmer provides vet care to his cows.

Now that that's out of the way:
This thread has a specific purpose. Please read the original post. If you do not have something to contribute, please stop wasting my time.

 

This thread has persisted for 190 posts. No one has thus far been able to successfully even define the State, much less prove my existence within it.

If you (the reader) sincerely believe you have a new argument which has not already been covered in the 10 pages of this thread, then please create a new thread in the SFA, and I will respond to it accordingly.

As of now this thread will be locked and remain as a demonstration of invalidity of the concept of a 'State,' and the argument that 'one must pay taxes because one resides within a state.' This is what the thread was designed to show, and this is what it has shown.

/end

 

[buying obby maulers]

The state is not real, therefore it is impossible to prove your existence within it. Most posts on this thread assume the state is something contingent, like the nation. However, since the state is simply a collection of institutions that have the legitimate capacity to use force, proving your existence within it is both pointless and futile. You exist within a nation (the people who make up a collective group in a certain region) but no one exists within a state. Your primary relationship with the state is that you accept their legitimate use of force on you. If you do that, you accept the state has legitimate authority, therefore it exists. One cannot, however, exist within the state, because the state and the nation are different things, as previously stated.

 

[Chlue]

I'm not sure whether you exist or not, probably not, considering we are all one consciousness

 

[Trin]

Well, it's difficult to prove your existence within a state without more information. One can't give burden of proof without facts. Could explain why the continuous "circular" speculations within this thread.

If you really want a specific answer: No one can give burden of proof without knowing more information.

Which makes me wonder, why hasn't anyone ever questioned you?

 

[Philadelphia]

Ok I'm not sure where you live, but let's assume you live in the United States:

1. Everybody who lives in the United States, lives within a state.
2. You live in the United States.
3. Therefore, you live within a State.

Modus Ponens. Valid argument with only 2 premises whose truth would guarantee the conclusion. I don't think the second premise is very deniable given the assumption we made, and in any case, the argument would work just as well if you live in most other countries. The trouble is with the first premise, whose truth I think depends heavily on how you define "state" and living therein. If you define it as just living on land where some government (or "group of people") has assumed some degree of control over, then I don't think the first premise is very controversial. I think you can always give various definitions which could affirm or deny the first premise, depending on how you want to argue.

The question of whether the government is acting morally by taxing you, or collecting information about you, I think is a different one. But I think you can always argue: yeah, the government taxes me and collects information about me, so in that sense I am part of their "state", but I think this is immoral!

 

[Kiln]

This thread has persisted for 190 posts. No one has thus far been able to successfully even define the State, much less prove my existence within it.

If you (the reader) sincerely believe you have a new argument which has not already been covered in the 10 pages of this thread, then please create a new thread in the SFA, and I will respond to it accordingly.

As of now this thread will be locked and remain as a demonstration of invalidity of the concept of a 'State,' and the argument that 'one must pay taxes because one resides within a state.' This is what the thread was designed to show, and this is what it has shown.

/end

This thread is ridiculous. A state is a defined territory, owned by someone else, or in the case of the United States, a majority. To reside in a state you must follow the state guidelines.

 

[Xier0]

Further, you need to prove that a state exists, before you attempt to prove that I exist within it.

I'll take a shot at this argument. I'll start with the above quote since it seems to be the core.

Ugg. You have to assume you, reality, and I exist in order to make the above statement.

My question is literal and legal, not metaphysical.

I might need a little bit of clarification on what you mean by "Exists". You say literal and legal, not metaphysical, but immediately before that, it seems you question whether "reality", "you", and "I" exist. In response to that, I would say that the burden of proof that reality does not exist lies with the person making the claim that it does not. Every single argument for debate in this entire forum could be trumped with requiring the burden of proof that something as abstract as "Reality" exists before addressing the main issue.

 

You never specify your meaning of "state". I'm assuming it could be any meaning of it, but we must prove you can exist in it.

Following this definition - "The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time."

I'm going to say you exist in a state of mind, the state of a person's cognitive processes.

You think therefor you exist. If you have any doubts of that, you exist.

 

[Xier0]

You never specify your meaning of "state". I'm assuming it could be any meaning of it, but we must prove you can exist in it.

Following this definition - "The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time."

I'm going to say you exist in a state of mind, the state of a person's cognitive processes.

You think therefor you exist. If you have any doubts of that, you exist.

I'll play devils advocate for a second here: the statement "I think, therefore, I am" and all related statements of the same nature is a case of begging the question. The premise accepts that you already exist in order for you to think, and the conclusion is the same as the premise: I exist, therefore, I exist.

Ultimately, existence of you, me, and reality as a whole has to be taken as a definite, because there is no way to prove that reality without a doubt does or does not exist. This could be argued for another 10 pages with no relevance to the actual topic.

Saying the burden of proof concerning existence of self or reality lies with the person claiming that it does exist is somewhat of a straw man argument, and is really only being used evasively.

 

I'll play devils advocate for a second here: the statement "I think, therefore, I am" and all related statements of the same nature is a case of begging the question. The premise accepts that you already exist in order for you to think, and the conclusion is the same as the premise: I exist, therefore, I exist.

Ultimately, existence of you, me, and reality as a whole has to be taken as a definite, because there is no way to prove that reality without a doubt does or does not exist. This could be argued for another 10 pages with no relevance to the actual topic.

Saying the burden of proof concerning existence of self or reality lies with the person claiming that it does exist is somewhat of a straw man argument, and is really only being used evasively.

Reality is the paradox of existence. We obviously can't definitively prove reality, but what is the point of trying to do so? Perceiving it is good enough. I think therefore I am. Thoughts are intangible ideas that can only be created by yourself. Ideas can't be held alone. Something must be supporting that idea, the brain. The brain, a container of our thoughts. If ideas exist, the supportive block for it must exist as well. Our brain is tangible, making it's existence reality.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Let's begin with the obvious. OP needs to define a state, as he poses the question it isn't our job to set the parameters. It's impossible to debate otherwise.