Prove my existence within a state

[onethousand]

A state is not only a mere geographical location but a political community comprised of people.

Therefore, as long as you are a person (which I think we can agree on as a premise to this argument) you are part of a state, not necessarily any formal nation-state. You unto yourself constitute a 'community' of one mind within the territory of your own body, qualifying as the smallest possible of states.

 

[Basic_All_Day]

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, but I'll give it a shot.

Countries and states were synonymous in the past, though usually states were the fledglings of said country. If you live in a country, you live in a state.

You take part of the activities of a state such as public services and taxation.

Hmm.. Again I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're place of residence is within defined boundaries you live within the state. However, I think using state is a tad specific because as was stated earlier states aren't defined as masses of land.

Explain your question further please?

 

A state is not only a mere geographical location but a political community comprised of people.

Therefore, as long as you are a person (which I think we can agree on as a premise to this argument) you are part of a state, not necessarily any formal nation-state. You unto yourself constitute a 'community' of one mind within the territory of your own body, qualifying as the smallest possible of states.

That's just defining the state as 'any group of one or more people'. Thus your 'argument' is:

You are a person therefore you belong to 'a group of one or more people'.

It's an assertion, not an argument. Specifically it's the floating premise that your definition of 'state' is correct, with no argument and no conclusion.

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, but I'll give it a shot.

Countries and states were synonymous in the past, though usually states were the fledglings of said country. If you live in a country, you live in a state.

Normally, a country is a type of state.

You have not shown that I live in a country, nor that such a thing exists.

You take part of the activities of a state such as public services and taxation.

I have responded previously:
http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=7363179&postcount=21

Hmm.. Again I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're place of residence is within defined boundaries you live within the state. However, I think using state is a tad specific because as was stated earlier states aren't defined as masses of land.

If I live within define boundaries of land? Are you saying that a fence constitutes a state?

Explain your question further please?

Read the thread.

 

[Relevance]

After following this argument for a little longer, it still has me a bit confused. For example, if I was asked to prove the existence of an apple - I would begin by listing it's attributes: red, round, has a core, etc. Of course, you have the easy job of shouting... now that you've described the apple, prove to me that it exists! And because I cannot show you an apple, or prove the exclusivity of the traits I have describes (rocks are round too), I have great difficulty continuing this argument. With the state, I am still tempted to list attributes: bounded in terms of land and by population, can at least enforce some property rights, etc. And in the same way, you can point out that I'm wrong for the reasons you listed. Of course, the alternative method I've seen people pursue is an assumption that the state exists and then defining it. The very nature of this assumption makes it easy pickings.

I feel there needs to be better criteria. The question is loaded - the state here is undefined, it is not known to exist, and moreover, we have to actually prove that YOU exist within it. After all, words themselves are abstract concepts.

 

[Fire Monkey]

I cannot prove the existence of reality itself, so i'll hold up for now on proving that you exist Sythe >_<

 

[SubZeroTwo]

You don't in a state, you live in Washington DC, which is a district.

I'm right, aren't I?

 

After following this argument for a little longer, it still has me a bit confused. For example, if I was asked to prove the existence of an apple - I would begin by listing it's attributes: red, round, has a core, etc. Of course, you have the easy job of shouting... now that you've described the apple, prove to me that it exists! And because I cannot show you an apple, or prove the exclusivity of the traits I have describes (rocks are round too), I have great difficulty continuing this argument.

An apple is a concrete object, and its existence is inferred directly via perception. No further proof is required for concretes.

With the state, I am still tempted to list attributes: bounded in terms of land and by population, can at least enforce some property rights, etc. And in the same way, you can point out that I'm wrong for the reasons you listed. Of course, the alternative method I've seen people pursue is an assumption that the state exists and then defining it. The very nature of this assumption makes it easy pickings.

Imagine we were in a court. You bring me up on charges of not paying taxes. You claim my presence in the state makes me liable for taxes. (And you are willing to have me shot if I don't pay taxes.)

Where is your factual evidence that a state exists and that I am present in it?

Why is this such a hard question? For example if you take me to court for not paying rent you can easily prove that I live in a house, and that the house is owned by a landlord, and that I haven't paid the rent.

I feel there needs to be better criteria. The question is loaded - the state here is undefined, it is not known to exist, and moreover, we have to actually prove that YOU exist within it. After all, words themselves are abstract concepts.

I am not the generator of the "you must pay taxes and kiss the feet of the ruling class because you exist in a state" argument. I see no evidence for the existence of a state, nor my presence within it, whatever it is.

The burden of proof is certainly not on me, but I have given you the above two paragraphs to help you better understand where the challenge is issued from.

 

[SubZeroTwo]

Imagine we were in a court. You bring me up on charges of not paying taxes. You claim my presence in the state makes me liable for taxes. (And you are willing to have me shot if I don't pay taxes.)

Where is your factual evidence that a state exists and that I am present in it?

Social Security number. They track your ass yo. Unless you're an illegal, are you Sythe? Hablo espanol Sythe?


To your last question....The evidence that a state as in an area in a country on the planet, exists are the powerful people that control the landmass. They say you're in it because of your SS#, they track you. The government the local and federal track you of course, unless you're illegal. They can prove your present in their state, the state exists because the powerful people at top, use their power to control the masses. If you don't pay, you go to jail for a predetermined amount of time, if you're from a different country, they might ship your ass out there.


If you're wittingly refering to a state as in your body/conscience, we can't prove your existence in a virtual state. We could be in the Matrix for all we know. I can prove your body exists because our human brains are advanced enough to understand more than the primal instincts. Our advanced brains give us enough conscience-ness to understand our surroundings to a certain point. But I can't prove where your conscience mind exists, as far as we know, it exists in the brain.


I'm starting to think Sythe the person is a schitzo... LOL

 

[Trippy Dream]

Noone can prove that you live in a state.

No sane man can prove that he is in fact, not insane.

For this reason there can never be a therom to everything, because the theroy would be able to prove everything, except that it itself is correct.

The only way close way to prove that you exist within a state is to assume that everyone here is of a different consciousness, and that we are not a part of you or your imagination.
Assuming that we are not a part of you, and everyone here is not a part of me and my consciousness, then we are all seperate entities that agree that you exist.
So if you, I, and everyone else in this thread are not of the same consciousness then, by us all agreeing that you do exist in a state, then, you do exist in a state.

Also, even if you don't, you are made of atoms, atoms create molecules that can exist in 4 states. No matter what, you are in a state.

 

The evidence that a state as in an area in a country on the planet, exists are the powerful people that control the landmass. They say you're in it because of your SS#, they track you.

This is only evidence that others believe in the state.

If you're wittingly refering to a state as in your body/conscience, we can't prove your existence in a virtual state. We could be in the Matrix for all we know.

Not what I am referring to. Read the thread.

Noone can prove that you live in a state.

No sane man can prove that he is in fact, not insane.

For this reason there can never be a therom to everything, because the theroy would be able to prove everything, except that it itself is correct.

The only way close way to prove that you exist within a state is to assume that everyone here is of a different consciousness, and that we are not a part of you or your imagination.
Assuming that we are not a part of you, and everyone here is not a part of me and my consciousness, then we are all seperate entities that agree that you exist.
So if you, I, and everyone else in this thread are not of the same consciousness then, by us all agreeing that you do exist in a state, then, you do exist in a state.

Read the thread. The challenge has nothing to do with metaphysics (not that you even know anything about metaphysics, how pathetic.)

 

[nomans7789]

Imagine we were in a court. You bring me up on charges of not paying taxes. You claim my presence in the state makes me liable for taxes. (And you are willing to have me shot if I don't pay taxes.)

Where is your factual evidence that a state exists and that I am present in it?

Let me try my hand at this, it seems interesting.

I feel that asking to prove your existence within a state entirely relevant to the circumstances of which you are asking it. For example, in the above court scenario, there would be some sort of paper documentation signifying just cause to the government that you were avoiding taxes. There would be pay-stubs made out to you from your employer, property owned and deeds signed in your name with your handwriting, etc.

The above alone would prove that even if you were never physically in the state, you do draw and own assets in said state that are to be taxed and payed for, under the laws of that state in which your assets lie.

Now for proving your existence within a state, there is no way to prove your current existence by any other means than direct and personal contact at the moment in question. Documents, pictures, videos, all those would prove your existence at *some point* inside any given state, but could not possibly prove your current existence, much less where you exist.

However, given that there are no boundaries or parameters of the "state" in question, by simply existing you are in some sort of defined state. Currently, there is no unclaimed land anywhere in the inhabitable world, so by being alive you are existing in some state. That is proof you are in *a* state.

I will not attempt to prove the existence of a state, as the question you posed assumed the existence of any state, which by relation must also assume the existence of all legally acknowledged states.

If you are asking for proof you are in a specific state, I refer to the circumstances of the question. For example, a homeless man with no identification or physical assets or relatives may be impossible to be proven to exist under any certain identity. He exists nonetheless, which can be proven again only by immediate personal and physical contact, but he does not exist under any proven identity.

That said, a government wouldn't sue a homeless man for tax evasion. Maybe for loitering, but not tax evasion

 

[Rabs]

Metaphysically is it even possible to define a 'state'? .. Let alone prove your existence within one.

 

I feel that asking to prove your existence within a state entirely relevant to the circumstances of which you are asking it. For example, in the above court scenario, there would be some sort of paper documentation signifying just cause to the government that you were avoiding taxes. There would be pay-stubs made out to you from your employer, property owned and deeds signed in your name with your handwriting, etc.

The above alone would prove that even if you were never physically in the state, you do draw and own assets in said state that are to be taxed and payed for, under the laws of that state in which your assets lie.

Another one who clearly hasn't read the thread.

http://sythe.org/showpost.php?p=7363179&postcount=21

You've shown nothing except that there exist people who believe that I and my possessions belong to a 'state'. Evidence that I do not pay money to people who believe in the state does not constitute evidence of a state.

Now for proving your existence within a state, there is no way to prove your current existence by any other means than direct and personal contact at the moment in question. Documents, pictures, videos, all those would prove your existence at *some point* inside any given state, but could not possibly prove your current existence, much less where you exist.

How?

However, given that there are no boundaries or parameters of the "state" in question, by simply existing you are in some sort of defined state. Currently, there is no unclaimed land anywhere in the inhabitable world, so by being alive you are existing in some state. That is proof you are in *a* state.

That I am on land is not in question. That people who believe in the state also believe that said state owns the land is not in question.

But you have proven nothing. Only that the people who believe in a state also believe that the state owns land.

This is just begging the question. ( See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question )

That said, a government wouldn't sue a homeless man for tax evasion. Maybe for loitering, but not tax evasion

I can see that you do not take my claim seriously. There is no government, and you will be unable to prove the existence of one. It is a collective fiction to which you subscribe. Further, the vast majority of evil in the world is done under this same collective fiction -- it is the church of our age -- so rather than siding with it as your "education" would have you, why not think for yourself?

 

[Trippy Dream]

So sythe are you trying to assert that there is no government, and it's all just a shmuck?
I'm kindof confused here but with a very lack of a positive first post to show me what the fuck it's about lol.
Basically the proof that we live in a state is that there was a group of people that stated everyone living here lives by these rules, those rules have been set and until everyone of us revolts (egypt) then until that we have a government. "govern"ment they govern. Everyone is part of a government and in our own ways, our own houses are governments inside of governments inside of governments.... ect.

 

[onethousand]

This is obviously an intellectual game on your part to prove that you don't exist within a state, and that states per se seem like flawed, arbitrary constructs. But I'm going to play.

***

Even though the definition of a state is very much up for debate, I'm going to define the key components of a state as the following:
-A state must comprise a certain geographical territory.
-A state is composed of individual members residing within this territory.
-These members are governed by a particular centralized government.

(It'd be nice if you were willing to define a 'state' as well, so that it lets us debate on a common ground.)

Unless you begin arguing from an existentialist view, it can be said that you physically exist within the confines of a state: you live within that state's geographical territory, and you interact within and with members of the society over the state in which you live presides. You may or may not consider yourself governed by the particular centralized government of that state, but the society within which you act is governed by that particular c.g.. So it's easy to say that in physical and sociological terms you exist within the confines of a certain state.

But this obviously isn't the point. The point you are trying to raise is that you cannot be defined as a direct political and social constituent of the state in which you live. And that is true, because - to dreadfully paraphrase Koestler - a state is not an entity by itself which can be divided into millions of individual constituents. Rather, a collective of individuals may choose to form a state. Regardless of whether you consider yourself part or not part of this collective of individuals, there is no way I or anyone else can prove that you have made the choice to be part of that state.

 

[jaamal]

there is no way I or anyone else can prove that you have made the choice to be part of that state.

I can if he agrees to my definition of a state.


I must say, this thread is very entertaining...

First a state does not have a definite definition. So before I can prove you exist in a state, we must first agree on the definition of a state, and what qualifies as proof that a state exists so that I can prove its existence.

If you would agree on my definition or pm me your definition of a state, I will attempt to prove that you exist within a state. ( I am also curious of your definition of a state anyway, so I would still like a pm)

Webster definition of a "state".

A. A political organized group of people body of people usually occupying a definite territory.

B. The political organization of such a body of people

C. A government or politically organized society having a particular character


Webster definition of "society".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society


If you agree that those definitions are sustainable and acceptable in a debate. I will prove that a state exist by those standards and that you reside in it.


Just a note: I am also an anarchist.

 

[Curren$y]

State boundaries are wherever the government says they are.

These "states" only exist because the government says they do and people generally accept it.

You're not in a state, you're in a geographical location declared by the government to be a state.

 

So sythe are you trying to assert that there is no government, and it's all just a shmuck?

On the basis that entities are assumed not to exist until such is proven otherwise, yes.

I'm kindof confused here but with a very lack of a positive first post to show me what the fuck it's about lol.

Then read the thread.

Basically the proof that we live in a state is that there was a group of people that stated everyone living here lives by these rules, those rules have been set and until everyone of us revolts (egypt) then until that we have a government. "govern"ment they govern. Everyone is part of a government and in our own ways, our own houses are governments inside of governments inside of governments.... ect.

Try presenting an argument.

This is obviously an intellectual game on your part to prove that you don't exist within a state, and that states per se seem like flawed, arbitrary constructs. But I'm going to play.

It's not a game. "Government" so called, was the largest cause of unnatural death in the 20th century. 200,000 people died in the crusades. I'm sure you take the dangers of religion seriously because of this. Here is the still rising death toll for the religion of government, just in the last century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Even though the definition of a state is very much up for debate, I'm going to define the key components of a state as the following:
-A state must comprise a certain geographical territory.
-A state is composed of individual members residing within this territory.
-These members are governed by a particular centralized government.

You've defined a state in terms of itself again. You need to remove your last point.

Also, that your definition of state is broad enough that it actually applies to the entire universe.

Let's accept your definition for the time being and go with it anyway. Even though it is nonsense.

(It'd be nice if you were willing to define a 'state' as well, so that it lets us debate on a common ground.)

Read the thread.

Unless you begin arguing from an existentialist view, it can be said that you physically exist within the confines of a state: you live within that state's geographical territory, and you interact within and with members of the society over the state in which you live presides. You may or may not consider yourself governed by the particular centralized government of that state, but the society within which you act is governed by that particular c.g.. So it's easy to say that in physical and sociological terms you exist within the confines of a certain state.

You are defining the state as society, which is no more a real thing than a group of trees, or a number. It is an aggregate concept, not a concrete. Therefore I cannot be shown to exist within it.

What do we mean by exist within? Again, go back to the court case. I have to pay taxes when I'm "resident within the state". It's physical existence, but I would also accept the equivalent of club membership if someone could prove that.

I can if he agrees to my definition of a state.


I must say, this thread is very entertaining...

First a state does not have a definite definition. So before I can prove you exist in a state, we must first agree on the definition of a state, and what qualifies as proof that a state exists so that I can prove its existence.

If you would agree on my definition or pm me your definition of a state, I will attempt to prove that you exist within a state. ( I am also curious of your definition of a state anyway, so I would still like a pm)

Webster definition of a "state".

A. A political organized group of people body of people usually occupying a definite territory.

B. The political organization of such a body of people

C. A government or politically organized society having a particular character


Webster definition of "society".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society


If you agree that those definitions are sustainable and acceptable in a debate. I will prove that a state exist by those standards and that you reside in it.

I won't accept definition C, because it is self referential (government and state are the same in the context), and even removing the first two words merely defines the state as "society", which I have addressed previously on multiple occasions. The other two (A and B) I am happy to accept for the purposes of debate, if you so wish.

State boundaries are wherever the government says they are.

Begging the question. You have not shown that a government exists.

 

I want to add something extra here.

No matter what definition you come up with for a state, it will have to do with an aggregate of people; a collective. A collective does not have a mind or a will. It is not a real thing, it is a concept.

If you are going to define the state as an aggregate of people, then you are defining the state as a concept. Because aggregates don't exist in reality. So unless you are then going to go on to argue that I exist within a concept within your mind, you can probably stop yourself right there.

Now the other way to argue is to say the state is a club, like a corporation. That is still an aggregation, but one can prove that someone is a member by the fact of mutual contractual agreement. However the state is not a club, and there is no contract, so arguing in this direction will fail as well.

If you think you have another approach then shoot. Otherwise, I will refer you to this post and the rest of the thread for my rebuttals.

 

[onethousand]

It's not a game. "Government" so called, was the largest cause of unnatural death (...) century: (Link)

By no means did I try to trivialize this issue as 'a game.' The seriosity and grave consequences of government-inflicted damage in the past century is indubitable. What I meant was that asking us to prove your existence within a state is probably impossible, and as such it is an exercise in futility, the purpose of which is to show us that states are arbitrary constructs of which we should not have to be part, as we never make the conscious decision to be part of them.

You've defined a state in terms of itself again. You need to remove your last point.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking that though states constitute centralized government among the other two factors, centralized government by itself doesn't necessarily constitute/require a state (I just realized I was wrong, it does).

What did you think of the remainder of my post? :/

As I identify with Collectivist, Philosophical, Voluntary, and Individualist anarchism, I find it difficult to commit myself to arguing your existence within a state because I think that to be erroneous unto itself.

Several arguments present themselves to me, but I'm not going to argue them because I know they're flawed. 'You use state-provided facilities,' addressing your participation in the state and society, 'you accept and adjust your life to the legal/social boundaries instituted by the state,' etc. are all wrong for reasons obvious to you and me.

***

Nevertheless, I'm going to have a bit of fun. Let's pretend your name is Alan Clark (no implication of any sorts, I just made up the name).

You exist within the body of Alan Clark. This physical territory ('the body of Alan Clark') contains one individual ('Alan Clark'). The behaviours of the entire human constituency (all individuals) of this territory are governed by a set of morals and ethical codes (or biological impulses and complexes), instituted by and centralized in the nervous system of Alan Clark. Therefore, in the case of you ('Alan Clark') we have a confined physical territory, in which all individuals residing in this territory are governed by a single centralized system. Hence, you, Alan Clark, constitute the entirety of and live within that particular state (let's call it 'ACtopia').