Prove my existence within a state

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'.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

Begging the question.

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

This assumes the existence of a state to begin with.

 

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.

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

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'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

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

 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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