Prove my existence within a state

As you already said, you pay taxes. <-- Proof one.

I pay taxes under duress to a particular person (namely Michael D'Ascenzo). That Michael D'Ascenzo believes a state exists, and that he forces me to pay him on its behalf, does not prove the existence of a state, nor my existence within one; All it proves is that Michael D'Ascenzo uses force to extract money from me, and that Michael D'Ascenzo believes in something called a 'state'.

Can you honestly say you've never encountered a public service in your environment? Police, fire trucks/men, libraries, public restrooms, etc? <-- proof 2 ; the existence of public services

Again, this does not constitute proof of the existence of a state, merely that there are people who believe there exists such a thing, and who actively rob people to pay for the consequences of beliefs.

To re-frame your "argument" in the context of religion: If I were to ask you to prove the existence of god, then you would have responded here with: "Can you honestly say you've never encountered a member of clergy? Bishops, priests, preachers, etc." -- as though this constitutes evidence. Again, the only thing this is evidence of is that there are people who believe such a thing as 'god' exists.

Using prior knowledge, I know you're of legal age to vote; and even if you don't, you're of an age where you can witness an election and realize that it is an election. A democracy can only take place within a political body. <--- proof three

So what if I witness people voting? I witness people going to church. Voting does not prove the existence of a state, and it certainly does not prove my existence within a state. Again, all it proves is that there are people who believe such a thing exists.

since you're part of a political body you're in "a state".

This is has not been shown. And for something that's allegedly so trivial to demonstrate (that I am a 'citizen' within a 'state') you guys seem to be having a pretty hard time of it.

 

[Usmann 411]

I am asking you to prove that I exist within a state -- which, if you read my earlier posts, logically cannot be the same thing as the ground.

Reading through this thread, I see there is some confusion as to what you're asking. Could you define the term state as being used in your argument?

 

Reading through this thread, I see there is some confusion as to what you're asking. Could you define the term state as being used in your argument?

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.)

 

[Usmann 411]

So by state you don't mean geographical or political as much as a condition or form of being?

 

So by state you don't mean geographical or political as much as a condition or form of being?

As I just said its not my argument; I'm not presenting an argument. I don't believe such a thing as a state exists.

My definition of a state (although it bears no relevance whatever to this thread, because the presenter of the argument should provide his/her own definitions) is:

edit: you can pm me for it. I'm not going to put it in this thread since it may affect the outcome of the arguments.

 

[Usmann 411]

Well clearly it will affect the outcome of the arguments, as you will be clarifying what you want proven.

 

Well clearly it will affect the outcome of the arguments, as you will be clarifying what you want proven.

You're shifting the burden of proof. (Fallacy.)

It is not my claim that a state exists or that anyone exists within it if it does.

If you claim that a 'gdifugshodfgiuh' exists, and I ask you to prove it, you cannot then ask me for my definition of a 'gdifugshodfgiuh' -- how the hell should I know what it is you are trying to claim exists? It's your claim thus you need to provide the definitions. All I can with respect to definitions is demonstrate logical inconsistency in the definitions you give me.

 

[Konner for 2012]

I'm honestly not too sure how to word this without creating a faulty argument. I'll give it a shot though. I'd like to note I'm just arguing, I don't agree with my points here. Just posing another side...

Assuming you live in a sovereign state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state), which I also assume operates to some extent on the principles of the Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat), you pay taxes, reinforcing the coercion aspect of Rechtsstaat. If you did not exist within the 'state', based upon the principle you are recognized as a person within the state by taxation, you would be ineligible for whatever your government hopefully does guarantee (constitutional rights and safety).

Without those rights, the government run by your country could come and seize anything they wanted, do whatever else they wanted, and say you don't matter- after all, you don't exist.

I kinda gave up midway through [I exited the window the first time]. Oh well. I moreso want to see what holes my argument has so I can improve my skizzles, yo.

 

[Weasel2013]

Well Sythe, I can honestly say I can't prove it. I'm on you're side, and i'll be sure to check back for the arguments of others. Just as a response to the counters you presented to my points..


Great analogy rephrasing my argument in a religious sense, that is true. However, I disagree with your counter of my third point. You see people voting, that does matter. It doesn't matter whether they or you believe in the democracy, but it does exist. You are effected by the outcome of those votes. If a system effects you, it must exist. The non-existant cannot affect a sane person.


Off-Topic: This was a great idea for a thread, it's a lot of fun debating indefinite articles. :laugh:

 

You see people voting, that does matter. It doesn't matter whether they or you believe in the democracy, but it does exist. You are effected by the outcome of those votes. If a system effects you, it must exist. The non-existant cannot affect a sane person.

What is "voting" factually?

Each "voter" writes on one piece of paper and puts it in a box. They don't see the rest of the process, but if we take the organizers of such an event's word for it, the pieces of paper are then tallied.

This is as far as voting goes; in that a vote has been conducted and the outcome determined. But you should understand that what a vote is, stops there. It's a poll. The outcome of the poll is determined, the poll is finished; just like here on sythe.org.

Am I affected by this process of carrying on a poll? No, other than that they force me at gun point to submit a piece of paper along with them.


Later, other criminals take it upon themselves to preside over other human beings as slave masters, based on the outcome of this poll.

Legally there is nothing binding in a poll. You neither sign a contract with the people who run the poll, nor is the vote itself a valid contract, and even if it were it could only bind those who consented voluntarily -- which, incidentally in Australia is no one, because voting here is always under duress.

Off-Topic: This was a great idea for a thread, it's a lot of fun debating indefinite articles. :laugh:

I agree. This has been successfully used in courts (because the court has to be able to prove jurisdiction in order to proceed) -- it is nothing lightweight, and I think you guys did very well trying to attack it. I think I will sticky it.

 

Assuming you live in a sovereign state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state),

Begging the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

If you did not exist within the 'state', based upon the principle you are recognized as a person within the state by taxation, you would be ineligible for whatever your government hopefully does guarantee (constitutional rights and safety).

This assumes the existence of a state to begin with.

 

[Weasel2013]

What is "voting" factually?

Each "voter" writes on one piece of paper and puts it in a box. They don't see the rest of the process, but if we take the organizers of such an event's word for it, the pieces of paper are then tallied.

This is as far as voting goes; in that a vote has been conducted and the outcome determined. But you should understand that what a vote is, stops there. It's a poll. The outcome of the poll is determined, the poll is finished; just like here on sythe.org.

Am I affected by this process of carrying on a poll? No, other than that they force me at gun point to submit a piece of paper along with them.

This is correct..however Sythe.org polls commonly only represent opinions for the sake of providing the person that created the poll with a decent sample size; there is also the possibility of the poll being confidential,which reduces the percent error of people lying and not giving their honest opinion, which would of course skew data. At the most polls here deal with "staff elections"

In real life however, they are for political positions. As you state below "slave masters/criminals". You aren't effected by the process of the poll, but prove to me you're not effected by the outcome?

Later, other criminals take it upon themselves to preside over other human beings as slave masters, based on the outcome of this poll.

You're beginning to sound like an anarchist.

Legally there is nothing binding in a poll. You neither sign a contract with the people who run the poll, nor is the vote itself a valid contract, and even if it were it could only bind those who consented voluntarily -- which, incidentally in Australia is no one, because voting here is always under duress.

Something does not need to be binding to have power. A slip of paper that can be you're honest opinion or a lie can lead to the success or decline of an area.

I agree. This has been successfully used in courts (because the court has to be able to prove jurisdiction in order to proceed) -- it is nothing lightweight, and I think you guys did very well trying to attack it. I think I will sticky it.

I support the sticky; could you give me links of where it's been used in courts? 90% of the time I find your links to be fascinating, especially the one about the experiment with the college students that simulated a real prison.




Finally, just to help Konnor out...

Begging the question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question





This assumes the existence of a state to begin with.

.... seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises .... Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is then placed in the premises.
&#8212;Paul Herrick

 

In real life however, they are for political positions. As you state below "slave masters/criminals". You aren't effected by the process of the poll, but prove to me you're not effected by the outcome?

Well I can't prove a negative to you, and it's a fallacy to demand such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

I've already explained however that the nature of the poll and the nature of the actions of the criminals are disconnected. Unless you can demonstrate some sort of binding agreement or obligation that is created by the act of voting -- which will be difficult even assuming it were a contract, if each vote is to be anonymous.

You're beginning to sound like an anarchist.

I am an anarchist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Something does not need to be binding to have power. A slip of paper that can be you're honest opinion or a lie can lead to the success or decline of an area.

Certainly true. A gun has no legal binding over anyone, but pull the trigger and someone can die.

I don't think it relates to proving my existence within a state however.

I support the sticky; could you give me links of where it's been used in courts? 90% of the time I find your links to be fascinating, especially the one about the experiment with the college students that simulated a real prison.

I'll have to check, but I believe the cases are documented in this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_In_Legal_Land

I know the author is the one who revised and uses them most frequently. Although the original version is really from Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The constitution of no authority." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

.... seldom is anyone going to simply place the conclusion word-for-word into the premises .... Rather, an arguer might use phraseology that conceals the fact that the conclusion is masquerading as a premise. The conclusion is rephrased to look different and is then placed in the premises.
&#8212;Paul Herrick

Don't give out tips on intellectual fraud. Good god, we've got quite enough of that around here as it is.

 

[Weasel2013]

Well I can't prove a negative to you, and it's a fallacy to demand such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

I've already explained however that the nature of the poll and the nature of the actions of the criminals are disconnected. Unless you can demonstrate some sort of binding agreement or obligation that is created by the act of voting -- which will be difficult even assuming it were a contract, if each vote is to be anonymous.

Personally I disagree that this should even be a official fallacy. If you prove to me that you are effected you've thus proved you can't be not effected <-- that's horrible grammar.

Basically if I say prove to me you're not a cow.
And you prove to me you're a human being.
You've disproved me saying you're a cow, without giving an evidence to prove a negative.

However, that's another discussion.

I'm not sure where you're going with asking me to demonstrate it's a binding agreement. In my previous post, I said that something doesn't need to be binding to have power. Votes aren't binding..I agree with you. But you are effected by the outcome, whether you participate or not. Whether you see it happen or not.

I am an anarchist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Ah, takes me back to English class. I appreciate the beliefs of anarchists and of all other viewpoints but I take no side myself; my school apparently believes anarchists are simply "incorrect", it's sad actually.

Certainly true. A gun has no legal binding over anyone, but pull the trigger and someone can die.

I don't think it relates to proving my existence within a state however.

What about where you need permits? That's binding.

It relates because the analogy you provided and my reasoning further prove that a non-binding system such as voting supports my statement "You're in a state because you are part of a political body."

I'll have to check, but I believe the cases are documented in this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_In_Legal_Land

I know the author is the one who revised and uses them most frequently. Although the original version is really from Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The constitution of no authority." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

Thank you.

Don't give out tips on intellectual fraud. Good god, we've got quite enough of that around here as it is.

Haha. I wasn't giving out tips, I was summarizing what the fallacy is, wiki can often be inaccurate but I found a quote in there that explained it perfectly, so in case he didn't want to analyze the article he could get the jist of what it was from my quote. I'm in no way supporting the use of fallacies in arguments...


EDIT: I'm now a voluntaryist. I didn't even know that the set of principles i've been believing were defined as that word. Thank you for the enlightenment. Of course i'll still continue to appreciate and attempt to understand the viewpoints of other viewpoints.

"A mind is unique in that it's the only container that it can be said the more you put it in the more it can hold."

 

[Sanctuary]

I am in no way smart enough to participate in this argument, but Sythe, have you ever thought about becoming a lawyer? lol

 

[The Phat Big Kid]

You exist because if you did not this website would of never been created, who created it? I'm not sure, but SOMEONE did. Someone created the Sythe Account "Sythe" Did you? Maybe Not but someone did. Whoever that someone is they exist. If you don't exist then neither does this website, then neither does this thread itself. So how are we making arguments of existence in it then? Am I dreaming is none of this real? If you do not exist then I guess none of us do. But if none of us exist then doesn't that mean we all exist in a way. No one can actually prove whether someone is real or not. Can you prove to me Santa Clause is not real? No you can only use science and tell me it is impossible for reindeer to fly, and pull a sled with probably Several Hundred or Thousand tons of toys. Just because you have never seen something does not mean it doesn't exist or it isn't real.

Do Aliens Exist are they real? We do not know because we cannot prove or disprove their existence. This universe is way to big to make that decision. I have never seen or met you before, but this world is very big. Their are reasons to believe however you do exist. One of the biggest examples is someone whoever may it be posted this thread,so in order for this thread to have been made someone must of made it.


Sorry if I misread the question, or didn't understand it, or just sound like a idiot.

 

[Schnell]

Why are you asking for proof of the properties (contains you) of something you don't believe is real (the state)?

 

I am in no way smart enough to participate in this argument, but Sythe, have you ever thought about becoming a lawyer? lol

Yes, I'm starting a law degree next year.

Why are you asking for proof of the properties (contains you) of something you don't believe is real (the state)?

Why do so many people misunderstand the way logic works? The challenge has nothing to do with what I think; I'm not presenting a case for anything in this thread. If you think a state exists and that I am somehow part of it then come and substantiate your claims, otherwise shut up. Simple? I think so.

Personally I disagree that this should even be a official fallacy. If you prove to me that you are effected you've thus proved you can't be not effected <-- that's horrible grammar.

Occams razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Being asked to prove a negative necessarily must be a fallacy because the evidence not appearing is presumed not to exist, and the reason it is presumed not to exist is because the sphere of provable claims is infinitesimal compared to the sphere of unprovable claims. If ignorance of the facts about X was cause to believe that X exists, then every single proposition that you come up with that cannot be immediately disproved would have to be written down and integrated into a whole. So for example, if I say there are a party of pink elephants drinking tea on titan, you can't disprove the statement. So, if logic worked this way, it would now be scientific fact that pink elephants drink tea on titan.

You can see how it doesn't work with this simple reduction to absurdity.

So to recap: because propositions regarding the existence of objects or attributes or states of matter and energy are much more commonly false than they are true, we assume that they are false until proven otherwise. This is the most consistent with reality, as proved empirically every time you walk out your front door, or do any sort of experiment or any sort of thinking whatever.

I'm not sure where you're going with asking me to demonstrate it's a binding agreement. In my previous post, I said that something doesn't need to be binding to have power. Votes aren't binding..I agree with you. But you are effected by the outcome, whether you participate or not. Whether you see it happen or not.

Well yeah I'm agreeing with you that people can have power over other people without any sort of voluntary or legally binding agreement. If this weren't the case then we wouldn't have a problem; voluntaryism would effectively be built into reality, which would simply be awesome. We are fighting the very fact that people have power over other people without a legally binding and voluntary agreement.

What about where you need permits? That's binding.

It's not because a permit is signed under duress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress

EDIT: I'm now a voluntaryist. I didn't even know that the set of principles i've been believing were defined as that word. Thank you for the enlightenment. Of course i'll still continue to appreciate and attempt to understand the viewpoints of other viewpoints.

That's great to hear!

Some websites you might be interested in:
www.freedomainradio.com
www.marcstevens.net
www.mises.org
www.freestateproject.org


Books:
Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard
Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

Atlas Shrugged (novel) by Ayn Rand

Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt
Our Enemy the State by Albert J. Nock

Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises


Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia

 

[Rejection]

States are man made.

 

[Physics213]

If I define the state to be sythe.org, then I can assume you to exist based on what I defined the state to be.

EDIT: I'll go into more detail. By you posting this thread, I can assume you exist within the state due to you posting this thread, and by you continuing to post throughout the "state" there would be more evidence that you exist.