Prove my existence within a state

[Tyler]

You ought to clarify your non-existence. How can someone who doesn't exist or is non-existent even respond on a keyboard?

The point of the thread is for you to prove his existence within a state, not for him to prove he dosent. I'd recommend actually reading through threads before you post in them.


He can obviously also exist and respond on sythe without being confined to a state. I assume that's what your question is saying.





Now there is no way to prove Richards existence within a state, but I think I can raise some good points. He has not replied in awhile though.

 

[ChaotiiiKid]

Now there is no way to prove Richards existence within a state, but I think I can raise some good points. He has not replied in awhile though.

go ahead and post them anyway

 

[Xier0]

You ought to clarify your non-existence. How can someone who doesn't exist or is non-existent even respond on a keyboard?

On existence of the state, since that is the first step (and I do hope Richard swings by this thread again):

As it has been mentioned before, someone believing something physical exists does not make it actually exist - the thought of it exists, but the physical entity does not. HOWEVER, since "The State" seems to be a social construct, there is no need to define the physical entity's existence. The fact that all these pages of discussion generally defined the state within a patent way shows that the social concept of the state does exist.

Is any person within the state simply by being born? By the state's rules, however erroneous they may be, you are within the state if you are born there (in most cases). Regardless of whether or not it is ethical for the state to coerce a person within their realm of influence, the state does seem to exist and exert its influence on the autonomy of the persons within the state, for good or bad. Evidence of the existence of the state is confirmed by the collective response from the users in this thread, and the existence of a person within it is confirmed by the evidence of autonomy violations that the state exerts on a person.

 

[Xier0]

Also, another way to define the state's existence as a physical/social entity is by comparing it, once again, to Sythe.org.

Sythe.org is a social construct (private club) that doesn't physically exist outside the realm of a long string of code bunched together on servers. The state exists in such a way that it doesn't physically exist outside of the realm of a long string of paper bunched together in office drawers in various gov't offices. If you are going to apply the literal definition of existence, apply it equally and objectively to both "The State" and to Sythe.org.

 

On existence of the state, since that is the first step (and I do hope Richard swings by this thread again):

As it has been mentioned before, someone believing something physical exists does not make it actually exist - the thought of it exists, but the physical entity does not. HOWEVER, since "The State" seems to be a social construct, there is no need to define the physical entity's existence.

I take this to mean you agree that the state does not physically exist.

The fact that all these pages of discussion generally defined the state within a patent way shows that the social concept of the state does exist.

No it merely means various people posting in the thread believe in something they each call 'the state.' No one has given a rigorous definition of a state and there is certainly no agreement between people attempting to give a definition.

As an aside if you look at international law, the only common defining characteristic of all states is that they have relations with other states. This is a circular definition. As a case in point, see the recent acknowledgement of Palestinian state by an EU state. Was Palestine not a state before? And is now?

If the state is a circularly defined concept then it is not a concept. In fact it is not anything except a word.

Is any person within the state simply by being born? By the state's rules, however erroneous they may be, you are within the state if you are born there (in most cases).

Assuming the initial point / begging the question.

Either you are assuming that the state has a physical existence and that I can be physically born into it, or you are assuming that I can be physically born into a rule on a piece of paper. Either way you have not proven existence within the state.

Regardless of whether or not it is ethical for the state to coerce a person within their realm of influence, the state does seem to exist and exert its influence on the autonomy of the persons within the state, for good or bad. Evidence of the existence of the state is confirmed by the collective response from the users in this thread, and the existence of a person within it is confirmed by the evidence of autonomy violations that the state exerts on a person

Again the facts are that people who believe in 'the state' coerce others. This does not prove my existence within a state, nor does it prove the existence of a state.

Also, another way to define the state's existence as a physical/social entity is by comparing it, once again, to Sythe.org.

Sythe.org is a social construct (private club) that doesn't physically exist outside the realm of a long string of code bunched together on servers. The state exists in such a way that it doesn't physically exist outside of the realm of a long string of paper bunched together in office drawers in various gov't offices. If you are going to apply the literal definition of existence, apply it equally and objectively to both "The State" and to Sythe.org.

Again I take this to mean you agree that the state does not physically exist and is just a piece of paper.

I cannot exist within a piece of paper therefore I cannot exist within the state.

 

Also I feel I should point out that this thread is not just to be funny.

It really is the case that there is no such thing as a state. There are no citizens there are no states. The police are just men in blue costumes who will shoot you for disagreeing with them.

 

[Xolr]

I think the simplest answer would be that I couldn't prove your existence within a state until you proved my existence within a state.

 

[Tyler]

Just reposting this since I have not gotten a reply from Richard.

Sythe, have you ever (after being of legal age) been in contact with the government, in such a condition that you have benefited from their uses?

Such as

-Received income tax after filing your taxes?
-Applied for a drivers licence?
-Taken part in a government funded program?
-Even purchased a Government funded Public transit pass?

 

[Xier0]

I think the simplest answer would be that I couldn't prove your existence within a state until you proved my existence within a state.

It's the claim of statists that the state exists in the first place. Richard is claiming that the burden of proof requires that statists prove that the state has to physically exist in order for Richard exist within it.

 

[Kartay]

agree with xier0

 

[Anet390]

But doesn't Richard forfeit his argument when submitting taxes or even filling out any form that asks where he lives. By recognizing that he lives within a state, how can he argue that he does not.

 

[Almighty So]

But doesn't Richard forfeit his argument when submitting taxes or even filling out any form that asks where he lives. By recognizing that he lives within a state, how can he argue that he does not.

i would think the asme thing..

 

[Xier0]

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

Anyways - post 12 pages - is the nonexistence of someone within a state similar to this:?


James has a piece of paper. He calls it the state. He draws a picture of Sarah on the state and tells her that she is within it. Sarah does not recognize the state and she definitely is not "within" the state in any sense.

George has large tracts of land in front of him and men with guns. He calls it the state. He tells Sarah that she is standing on his state and she is within it. Sarah does not recognize the state and she definitely is not "within" the state in any sense.

 

[Arya]

Derivatives of or pertaining to existence are my favorite.

I'll attempt to establish some understanding conducive to linguistic conformity:

Prove - show validity through rationally sound deduction
my - you, encompassing the whole condition with equal consideration of any individual parts
existence - dynamic-static binary
within - relation between some encompassing and it's derivative elements
state - observable system (observable quantum mechanical system)

I may propose some state, which I attempt to prove your existence within, which derives some thing that is a variant of itself exclusively distinguishable by some property that 1) is of mechanisms of the proposed state and 2) is the cause of compositional deviation between the thing and it's variant.

My argument(s):

Where there is no observable movement, there are no properties applicable to you, that which would be the exclusive distinguishable quality between you and some conceptual variant.

My claim:

You possess properties or qualities or any distinguishable measurement, without which there exists no theoretical binary consisting of you and some variant. In this claim, I propose that I have proven your existence within a state.

 

For the record, I know nothing about this, and after a quick google search (to understand what this is even asking), I'm taking a stab in the dark.

Basically, here is what I understand you to be asking:

" I am asking to prove my existence in a state (political term). The piece of land I am currently sitting at has been a part of the Earth for billions of years. There was no "Los Angeles" then. There was no "California" then. There was no "United States" then. Those 3 things are CONCEPTS. They are not facts because they are all fabricated designs. The state is not the ground I live on, because the ground has been here for billions of years but the state has not." - via the SmokinMills forum. (If this is wrong, correct me)

My argument is based on one premise: you're activity within society. If you are asking for proof that you exist, one could pull up tax forms, drivers license, utility bills, etc. Should you deny that is proof, consider it this way: You're denying you are apart of the state to begin with. The fact that the state within itself is an intangible concept, in my eyes, means you cannot tangibly exist within it. Therefore to produce any form of adequate proof, it would need to be intangible, based on the phrase "you attack fire with fire." So when you are presented documents of yourself, you have two options: to accept or deny that the individual on them is you. Should you accept, you are therefore apart of the state. Should you decline, that means you are denying your own existence, and therefore cannot be apart of the state, and would I guess be a form of rogue.

again, no real idea, just thought i'd take a stab at it.

 

[Jimmy]

So this argument will be based variously on history, on politics, and on the common law, given that we both reside in common law countries (the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America).

Civil law, inherited from Rome, is codified law, produced by a legislature as the Continental Congress during the American War of Independence or the Roman Senate during the period of the Roman Republic.

Free men can send delegates to negotiate on their behalf in an organizing body.

Under the British system, the Crown is Sovereign, and as subjects of the Crown, the people have no inherent rights other than those granted to them and recognized in written law (as the Magna Carta) because the Queen gets her power to rule from God. This is the Divine Right of Kings.

In the British system, the Crown, fearing her subjects, delegates a portion of the Sovereignty granted to her by Almighty God to her parliament, which is vested with its own parliamentary sovereignty from the Queen, the head of the state and the church, God’s representative on earth.

In America, we dispute this. We embrace the notion of popular sovereignty, the idea that the people themselves are sovereign, and that governments derive their right to govern through mutual consent, the social contract.

As nations (i.e., empires and nation-states) developed from cities (i.e., trade unions and city-states), international law developed between nations, which recognizes the right of individuals to self-determination and of the state to its own state sovereignty.

Free men are free to delegate their sovereignty to whomever they like, be it a parliament, a monarch, or a state government.

But that doesn't mean the state is a figment. The state does exist.

As the Western frontier was conquered, law enforcement was central to social function and cohesion. Sheriffs were elected by the locals, grand juries indicted criminals, and every citizen was free to arrest and apprehend lawbreakers.

This is still the system we live under in America.

As cities grew, states were formed by consent and the people elected representatives to state legislatures through their own free choice and association.

Whether the edicts of these bodies have merit is for judges to decide. But such an entity called the People of California exists in the local courts and prosecutes criminals on behalf of an entity called the State of California.

Not all individuals who exist within the territory administered by the State of California are members of the state or are citizens of the state or are subject to the government of the state. Indian reservations, for example, are autonomous and semi-independent nations.

The state has no rights.

The state is just a cartel. The government is a firm. A legal corporation. It is a trust of the state legislature. And the state legislature is simply a body of citizens, created by the people of the state. If the people really had a problem with the legislature, they are free in their sovereign capacity to construct an alternative legislative body or representative institution or another system entirely to overtake the administration of public goods as roads and air defense and naval defense.

 

[Biscuitz]

It really appears that this thread only exists so Sythe can try to stroke his e-peen by 'out-arguing' people by keeping the debate deliberately vague and centered around semantics.

I mean, half the people in this thread don't even understand what you want to be proven because you haven't given any indication at all on precisely what you are even arguing about.

'State' is a word used in so many different contexts. You could be referring to its use in political terms (of which numerous political scientists have given many definitions of this word, such as Max Weber's argument that a state is 'an entity which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force') or you could be referring to 'state' in a philosophical sense. We don't know because you don't actually set the parameters of debate.

Of course, you may say something like 'because you can't tell me what I am talking about, that must mean the concept of state does not exist'. That is obviously fallacious because the confusion doesn't originate through a lack of belief that the concept of the 'state' and by extension your existence in one doesn't exist, but rather because of the vague way you have structured your request.

TLDR: If you want a serious debate on this topic, you need to explicitly detail what context you are considering when you say 'state'. At the moment you are debating on the foundation of ambiguity rather than reasoned argument.

 

It really appears that this thread only exists so Sythe can try to stroke his e-peen by 'out-arguing' people by keeping the debate deliberately vague and centered around semantics.

I mean, half the people in this thread don't even understand what you want to be proven because you haven't given any indication at all on precisely what you are even arguing about.

'State' is a word used in so many different contexts. You could be referring to its use in political terms (of which numerous political scientists have given many definitions of this word, such as Max Weber's argument that a state is 'an entity which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force') or you could be referring to 'state' in a philosophical sense. We don't know because you don't actually set the parameters of debate.

Of course, you may say something like 'because you can't tell me what I am talking about, that must mean the concept of state does not exist'. That is obviously fallacious because the confusion doesn't originate through a lack of belief that the concept of the 'state' and by extension your existence in one doesn't exist, but rather because of the vague way you have structured your request.

TLDR: If you want a serious debate on this topic, you need to explicitly detail what context you are considering when you say 'state'. At the moment you are debating on the foundation of ambiguity rather than reasoned argument.

Read through the first 2 pages of this thread, and you'll find answers to what exactly is being asked:

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'm assuming you're defining territory as "some land"?

A state isn't defined as "some land" though. Did the "state of Australia" exist before 1901? The continent (the land) of Australia certainly did.

Well I certainly would be happy to, but this isn't my argument.

It is the same deal as "prove the existence of god". The supporters of the proposition enter arguments, and I raise objections. They can try for any definition of god they like within reason.

The reason for this thread is simple. Everytime I debate anyone about anything political it is only a matter of time before someone says "love it or leave it" or something to this effect. My question is: leave what? I never joined, and I don't know what it is, or indeed if there is any evidence to support its existence... So, in otherwords: prove my existence within a state, then maybe your advice to "leave it" would be comprehensible.

What I can tell you is that the state cannot be the ground, as I've logically explained earlier in the thread. So even if you could prove my alleged existence within a state (and that such a thing actually exists to begin with), then my leaving it would not be leaving my piece of land (since it is not and does not own my land.)

 

[Biscuitz]

Then proving the concept of the 'state' is elementary. It is simply a social construct describing how, in the modern age, groups of people have tended to converge and organise themselves under a single system of government. I can't understand how anyone can deny that the concept of 'state' exists anymore than they could deny that gravity as a concept exists. The system of states was a natural progression from that of feudalism and other old systems of governance.

To define 'state' precisely in academic terms is difficult due to the different nuances that are inherent within different systems of government around the world. It is useful to refer to characteristics of states rather than trying to dance around a game of semantics as this thread has done by attempting to create a universal definition of what encompasses statehood. To suggest that a concept doesn't exist simply because it is difficult to succinctly define is nonsense.

Now to answer the question of ones 'existence within a state' would surely be equally elementary. If an individual lives in an area, such as Australia, which has a recognised (i.e. has external sovereignty) and an accepted (i.e. has internal sovereignty by virtue of 'the government' having supreme control over their jurisdiction) central government, then that individual can be considered to 'exist within the confines of the state'. I cannot see how anyone could dispute this without resorting to skirting around the topic through semantics.

 

[Xier0]

To suggest that a concept doesn't exist simply because it is difficult to succinctly define is nonsense.

Most would say to suggest that something exists which can't be succinctly defined is nonsense.

Now to answer the question of ones 'existence within a state' would surely be equally elementary. If an individual lives in an area, such as Australia, which has a recognised (i.e. has external sovereignty) and an accepted (i.e. has internal sovereignty by virtue of 'the government' having supreme control over their jurisdiction) central government, then that individual can be considered to 'exist within the confines of the state'. I cannot see how anyone could dispute this without resorting to skirting around the topic through semantics.

^ I argued something similar as well as many others did.

As it has been mentioned before, someone believing something physical exists does not make it actually exist - the thought of it exists, but the physical entity does not. HOWEVER, since "The State" seems to be a social construct, there is no need to define the physical entity's existence. The fact that all these pages of discussion generally defined the state within a patent way shows that the social concept of the state does exist.

I got this in response, which summed it up cleanly.

I take this to mean you agree that the state does not physically exist.

The object of the thread is to -prove- that the state -physically- exists, which it does not.