Prove my existence within a state

[NickV]

Go ahead. I'm interested to hear your arguments.

Everything is objective; that's the beauty of debate.

To prove something correct, you must make the debated against agree to your argument, whether it be pressure or questioning a topic they value.

To be able to express an idea, you must be an entity.
You expressed an idea in your post by asking for an argument, therefore you are an entity.
If you are an entity, you must exist in one of the possible forms.
Existence is objective, so you exist in my view due to the fact that you can express an idea.

 

[i337]

why are you asking "Prove my existence within a state"
when you're proving nothing to prove existence?

With no frame of reference, you can't unquestionably
prove existence. But based on the fact that you are
here, we can assume that you exist.

 

[Celestial Bow]

It doesn't matter if the state doesn't truly exist; it’s an embodied concept by a majority. You inhabit somewhere and those around you through collective belief form a state. They also protect it, and fight those that fight its restrictions. You can inhabit this place and think of yourself as not existing as part of the state, but that’s meaningless. If you actively fight what you believe to be a nonexistent state, breaking its nonexistent rules, the collective state with its collective power formed off of no real backing but an idea will fight back and frequently will win. If you do not fight back, if you are not actively going against what the state wants (even if you are still doing what you want and it happens to be within the confines of the state) you are still living within it, and if you live within it, it exists. It does not exist like the U.S. doesn’t exist, England doesn't exist, but you yourself form the state by agreeing to pay your taxes to Mr. D'Ascenzo.

 

[Returning Truth]

I can only prove i exist, because i am thinking. therefore i must be something to be able exist.

Its impossible to prove you actually exist.


ever heard of the famous quote 'I think therefore i am' ?

 

I can only prove i exist, because i am thinking. therefore i must be something to be able exist.

Its impossible to prove you actually exist.


ever heard of the famous quote 'I think therefore i am' ?

Garbage.

Everything is objective; that's the beauty of debate.

To prove something correct, you must make the debated against agree to your argument, whether it be pressure or questioning a topic they value.

To be able to express an idea, you must be an entity.
You expressed an idea in your post by asking for an argument, therefore you are an entity.
If you are an entity, you must exist in one of the possible forms.
Existence is objective, so you exist in my view due to the fact that you can express an idea.

Nothing to do with proving my existence in a (political) state.

 

[Returning Truth]

Garbage.


Nothing to do with proving my existence in a (political) state.

didnt read the (political) i was just quoting einstein.

 

[0wn_dem_rune_rocks]

didnt read the (political) i was just quoting einstein.

René Descartes, not Einstein, said, "I think, therefore I am."

Edit: And like Sythe said, he's not interested in a metaphysical debate.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Garbage.

It isn't garbage. It's a theory which is highly promoted in Western philosophy.However, it isn't really relevant. The fact of the matter is that a secular state cannot declare they have the right to control people born in the state, while a non-secular state (such as medieval England) can claim that the ruler (in England's case the king) was given the right of God to rule the people. However, a secular state can argue that it is for "the greater good" to be a state.

The answer to this thread is: you cannot prove that a state exists, and therefore a state has no right, under Lockean liberty, to exist.
However, this would be a weak argument if used by anarchists. If one decided to look at a state as a breach of Lockean liberty, one must also look at society as a breach of Lockean liberty. A person's conscious and subconscious are greatly influenced by his parents and the society that he grows up in. The person's subconscious will use the information it learns from the society to influence or even make certain decisions for said person. For complete liberty to occur, there must be no environment at all, let alone no government or state.

 

[xk1llxk1llx]

You are in a state because your able to get a internet and television signil, and your still eating food.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

You are in a state because your able to get a internet and television signil, and your still eating food.

Lol'd

He means prove why the state, or government controlling an area, has the right to make you pay taxes and follow their laws, among other things, just because you were born there
What you said isn't really on topic.

 

It isn't garbage. It's a theory which is highly promoted in Western philosophy.

Popular garbage, then.

The fact of the matter is that a secular state cannot declare they have the right to control people born in the state, while a non-secular state (such as medieval England) can claim that the ruler (in England's case the king) was given the right of God to rule the people. However, a secular state can argue that it is for "the greater good" to be a state

The state is a political fiction, not physical ground. Here is a simple proof: The ground I stand on has been here for 2 billion years, but was there a 'state of Australia' before 1901? No! The 'state of Australia' was created by (and remains) an act of British parliament.

So to claim that I was 'born in a state' is to claim that I was born in an act of parliament. Ridiculous! It's like saying you were born in IBM.

The answer to this thread is: you cannot prove that a state exists, and therefore a state has no right, under Lockean liberty, to exist.

This statement is a logical absurdity and contradiction in terms. Watch as I replace state with god:

You cannot prove that god exists, and therefore god has no right to exist.

You are presupposing that god does actually exist but simply cannot be shown to exist. Whereas actually, in logic, things are presumed not to exist until proven otherwise. Thus if no evidence can be mustered for god, the rational position is to assume that god does not exist. And likewise, if no evidence can be mustered for 'the State', the state is presumed not to exist. There can be no 'right to exist', there is the simple fact that things either exist or they do not.

However, this would be a weak argument if used by anarchists. If one decided to look at a state as a breach of Lockean liberty, one must also look at society as a breach of Lockean liberty. A person's conscious and subconscious are greatly influenced by his parents and the society that he grows up in. The person's subconscious will use the information it learns from the society to influence or even make certain decisions for said person. For complete liberty to occur, there must be no environment at all, let alone no government or state.

Irrelevant and confuses the concept of liberty for the concept of power. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights )

 

It doesn't matter if the state doesn't truly exist; it’s an embodied concept by a majority. You inhabit somewhere and those around you through collective belief form a state. They also protect it, and fight those that fight its restrictions. You can inhabit this place and think of yourself as not existing as part of the state, but that’s meaningless. If you actively fight what you believe to be a nonexistent state, breaking its nonexistent rules, the collective state with its collective power formed off of no real backing but an idea will fight back and frequently will win. If you do not fight back, if you are not actively going against what the state wants (even if you are still doing what you want and it happens to be within the confines of the state) you are still living within it, and if you live within it, it exists. It does not exist like the U.S. doesn’t exist, England doesn't exist, but you yourself form the state by agreeing to pay your taxes to Mr. D'Ascenzo.

Your argument that it exists because I interact with people who believe it exists is not a valid argument.

Only interested in a proof of the existence of a state and/or the proof of my existence within a state.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Popular garbage, then.

I disagree. But let's save this argument for another thread.

The state is a political fiction, not physical ground. Here is a simple proof: The ground I stand on has been here for 2 billion years, but was there a 'state of Australia' before 1901? No! The 'state of Australia' was created by (and remains) an act of British parliament.

So to claim that I was 'born in a state' is to claim that I was born in an act of parliament. Ridiculous! It's like saying you were born in IBM.

I agree.

This statement is a logical absurdity and contradiction in terms. Watch as I replace state with god:

You cannot prove that god exists, and therefore god has no right to exist.

You are presupposing that god does actually exist but simply cannot be shown to exist. Whereas actually, in logic, things are presumed not to exist until proven otherwise. Thus if no evidence can be mustered for god, the rational position is to assume that god does not exist. And likewise, if no evidence can be mustered for 'the State', the state is presumed not to exist. There can be no 'right to exist', there is the simple fact that things either exist or they do not.

Sorry, that was a typo, or I probably just wasn't thinking straight when I typed it.
I meant to say: "One cannot prove a state has the right to impose its laws and other restrictions on all born within its self-defined parameters, therefore, one cannot justify the state's right to impose its laws other restrictions on people born within the state's self defined parameters under the philosophy of Lockean liberty."

Irrelevant and confuses the concept of liberty for the concept of power. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights )

I believe it to be completely relevant. It is taking your original point, that a state cannot prove its existence, and assuming that you are implying through this statement that the state does not have the "natural right" to project its laws and restrictions on people born within its self-defined boundaries. I am arguing against this implication by saying that complete liberty is in fact impossible, as at some level we are shaped by our environment. I assumed you were implying this as you have tended to show libertarian anarchist views on other threads.

If all you are arguing that there is no way to prove the state exists, and you are not implying that the state is therefore bad, then you are correct, it's off topic.

 

I meant to say: "One cannot prove a state has the right to impose its laws and other restrictions on all born within its self-defined parameters, therefore, one cannot justify the state's right to impose its laws other restrictions on people born within the state's self defined parameters under the philosophy of Lockean liberty."

Well if you cannot prove the existence of a state then necessarily it has no rights.

I believe it to be completely relevant. It is taking your original point, that a state cannot prove its existence

No, that YOU cannot prove the state's existence. An entity does not 'prove it's own existence', it is its own existence.

For me to say to you, for example, that you must prove to me that you exist is a contradiction. It would require I presuppose both that you do not exist (in order for the hypothesis to be disproved by the response) and that you do (in order that I may put the question to you in the first place.)

I am arguing against this implication by saying that complete liberty is in fact impossible, as at some level we are shaped by our environment. I assumed you were implying this as you have tended to show libertarian anarchist views on other threads.

It's completely irrelevant. And your argument amounts to the Christian's argument that belief in god is required for people to be moral: You are claiming that belief in the state is required for people to be civil. It's quite as absurd, and no evidence has been presented to support this view.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Well if you cannot prove the existence of a state then necessarily it has no rights.

I agree. At that level the state is a dictatorship; an evil violating "natural rights." I would argue that the state is a necessary evil. Part of my argument is that there is no such thing as total liberty; however, you called that irrelevant for some reason.

No, that YOU cannot prove the state's existence. An entity does not 'prove it's own existence', it is its own existence.

A state is an idea; a contractual agreement between men. It has no physical existence, and therefore I cannot prove it has physical existence.

It's completely irrelevant. And your argument amounts to the Christian's argument that belief in god is required for people to be moral: You are claiming that belief in the state is required for people to be civil. It's quite as absurd, and no evidence has been presented to support this view.

That's a poor analogy. I am saying that there is no such thing as complete freedom, therefore, the fact that the state limits "liberty" isn't as bad as it seems.

 

A state is an idea; a contractual agreement between men.

Well this is easy to test. If it is a contract then show me the contract.

That's a poor analogy. I am saying that there is no such thing as complete freedom, therefore, the fact that the state limits "liberty" isn't as bad as it seems.

Ok, so to clarify, regardless of your opinion of reasoning by analogy: You are precisely saying that (irrational) belief in a state causes people to be civil, are you not?

 

[z Revs]

 

[malakadang]

Ive never really had a question like this before so here goes.

Everything that is governed must have a governor. We are governed by multiple "laws" in life namely the laws of physics also our need for energy (food)

From what i can gather a state in this context for example; Nevada.

Now if someone asks you where do you live, you would generally say the country then the state etc. When you say your full address you in essence are saying you live, and exist there. However if you dont believe your existence within a state then in reality you are saying that you reside in a place that doesnt exist ergo nothing.

This is sort of a hard statement to argue as the most accepted method to prove something is by measuring it and in this case like religion it is currently imposs
ible. The only way to prove this is to believe it which is what religion is, belief.

Basically what i am trying to say is that when you tell someone your full address, even though you may not believe in the state and if you reside in it, you do believe that other people believe in the existence of it.

The only problem with that is that you believe in that idea purely because other people, and i think you disregarded that earlier. I disagree.
How do you prove to a blind man that the sky is blue and the grass is green?
You cant.

I hope that was relevant and somewhat what your looking for, was just typing what i thought.

 

Ive never really had a question like this before so here goes.

Everything that is governed must have a governor. We are governed by multiple "laws" in life namely the laws of physics also our need for energy (food)

You don't see the contradiction in these two statements?

From what i can gather a state in this context for example; Nevada.

Now if someone asks you where do you live, you would generally say the country then the state etc. When you say your full address you in essence are saying you live, and exist there. However if you dont believe your existence within a state then in reality you are saying that you reside in a place that doesnt exist ergo nothing.

No. You misunderstand entirely. The state is not the ground. The state is political. Since you are too lazy to read the thread, here is the argument: http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=7802737&postcount=51

 

[pigbow]

After 45 minutes, I finally managed to see what you mean by state.

Well, this would be my opinion on this:

First off, you have to know who came up with the idea, and like you said Michael D'Ascenzo Believes that a state exists.

Second, I can't prove this to you, you can only prove it to yourself, there is no way I can prove it to you, because either you believe it or not, also IMO, there is no such thing as a state, I would say you belong to the western hemisphere of the world for example, but not to the USA, who is the USA in the first place? Did you choose to be born there? You didn't, when you were young you just made yourself believe that. If a state were to exist, couldn't I go to a foreign place and name it my land, and start my own country? No, because someone already did, and that someone believed that there was lets say Texas, and you were born there, so you believe you're from Texas, but technically you're from the southeast part of that landmark.

I tried my best :/