Prove my existence within a state

[Andrew lRawr]

^ simple

 

[originalsaltine]

You don't exist nor do I

 

[General_Kerr]

A State is an idea, the idea that people, property, or land (That are believed to be under the jurisdiction of this state, within it) are to follow a set of rules that were established with this idea.

A State has an area believed to be under it's jurisdiction, referred to as within the state, These boundaries are believed to exist by other states (More Specifically the people believed to control said states) as well as people within them.
(Or the boundaries are challenged, but that is offtopic)

You are within a physical area, because you exist as a human.

You are capable of receiving internet within this area. (You post on your own website, which requires internet access)

Currently all areas capable of receiving internet are within a state's physical boundaries.

Thus you are within the believed physical boundaries of a state.

Since A state is still only an idea, you only need to be believed to be within it by those who perpetuate this idea in order to be within it.

Thus You are within a State.





My First-Ever attempt at this I'm interested!
How did I do?

 

[x i mr nub]

Coveto ergo sum, a Latin phrase which means; the fact that you are capable of rational thought means that you exist.

 

[Blondi]

Coveto ergo sum, a Latin phrase which means; the fact that you are capable of rational thought means that you exist.

I don't believe Sythe is requesting that you prove his biological or philosophical existence, but rather that he exists within a state. As far as I can see, he is asking you to demonstrate how a ''sovereign state'' may claim to have authority over him, tax him, imprison him, etc. in the name of statute law.

 

[xxtrem3]

The fact that you're living on land that belongs to that particular states proves that your existence in that state.

If you do not agree with other people's beliefs, fight for your own belief and make the "state" your state.

 

[Blondi]

The fact that you're living on land that belongs to that particular states proves that your existence in that state.

Why does it belong to the state?

If you do not agree with other people's beliefs, fight for your own belief and make the "state" your state.

How do you suggest he goes about that?

 

[malakadang]

Why does it belong to the state?

Through law (I forgot the exact one), though, laws are enacted by the state so this is inevitably circular.

How do you suggest he goes about that?

You could attempt to secede.

 

[r4mmstein]

Through law (I forgot the exact one), though, laws are enacted by the state so this is inevitably circular.
You could attempt to secede.

Sythe sounds like a sovereign citizen...
Sythe, let me guess that you don't believe that Statutes and Acts of Parliaments are laws, right? And that because you've not consented into being in society, they don't apply to you?
Well the only way you can live a Freeman life is to live off the grid, bye bye internet etc.

 

[Noam]

Hello Sythe,
If you would be so kind as to post your home IP adress, it would be a matter of seconds to prove that you are located inside of a state. an HTTP header would be better, though

 

[Noam]

Why does it belong to the state?

Because the state will go about arresting anybody who declares otherwise as a prisoner of war

How do you suggest he goes about that?

Buy a few M-16s, design a flag, write a constitution and declaration of independence, prepare for war, and hope for the best.

 

[AleZ]

Coveto ergo sum, a Latin phrase which means; the fact that you are capable of rational thought means that you exist.

*Cogito ergo sum is a french phrase which means "I think therefore I am".
Unless someone was before descartes that I have not heard of..

 

[Burnley]

Your actions have affected my life, surely something that does not exist would never be aknowledged and not have an effect/impact on my existance

SYTHE.ORG FTW

 

[JohnK]

Through law (I forgot the exact one), though, laws are enacted by the state so this is inevitably circular.

Yes, through law that the state itself has imposed. What right does the state have to claim ownership of the land, impose law, tax the "citizens", etc?

 

[malakadang]

Yes, through law that the state itself has imposed. What right does the state have to claim ownership of the land, impose law, tax the "citizens", etc?

It has no right to do such things, the citizens just let it be.

 

A State is an idea, the idea that people, property, or land [...] are to follow a set of rules that were established with this idea.

[...]

If the state is an idea, then you are attempting to prove my existence within an idea. But ideas aren't real, and I am. So necessarily this reasoning must fail at the outset.

Sythe sounds like a sovereign citizen...
Sythe, let me guess that you don't believe that Statutes and Acts of Parliaments are laws, right?

They can be whatever you want them to be. The only question is, do you have any witnesses with first hand knowledge of the facts, that any law or statute applies to me? If so, how? What voluntary contract, pact or agreement have I entered into to make this arrangement valid?

And that because you've not consented into being in society, they don't apply to you?

Do not confuse society (the sum of all voluntary peaceful transactions) with the violence and predation of the ruling class. No one ejects me from economic transactions on the basis of my acceptance in the non-agression axiom. On the contrary, that is the very reason they are willing to trade with me in the first place.

Hello Sythe,
If you would be so kind as to post your home IP adress, it would be a matter of seconds to prove that you are located inside of a state. an HTTP header would be better, though

This would only constitute evidence that the individuals doing business as the ICANN believe my computer is within a state. But, like any other lines on a map, this does not constitute evidence that a state exists, nor does it constitute evidence that myself or my property exist within one. To put it another way, if a Christian says "god exists", and says "god owns everyone on this continent", and I happen to be on this continent, then it does not follow that either statement is true; in fact, no evidence has been presented. These are just assertions made by a third party.

 

[DeXoh]

If the state is an idea, then you are attempting to prove my existence within an idea. But ideas aren't real, and I am. So necessarily this reasoning must fail at the outset.

That is the inevitable conclusion of this debate, as I see it.

A 'state' is an abstraction in the minds of people, and thus cannot be proven to exist in the rigorous way you're demanding.

However, it's quite easy to prove that many people believe a 'state' exists, and for all practical purposes a 'state' exists to a regular person.

Although, I do sympathize with your frustration towards the "love it or leave it" conundrum; I too am apparently a part of this abstraction that many call a 'state'.

 

That is the inevitable conclusion of this debate, as I see it.

A 'state' is an abstraction in the minds of people, and thus cannot be proven to exist in the rigorous way you're demanding.

However, it's quite easy to prove that many people believe a 'state' exists, and for all practical purposes a 'state' exists to a regular person.

No, for all practical purposes people who believe a state exists will use violence to back their beliefs. But then this is nothing new, people who believe a god exists also use violence to back their beliefs.

 

[Cami3532]

To prove that you are within a state, one would have to first prove that a state exists. Your belief is that a state is a man made idea and therefore to prove that you are within this man made idea you would have to prove the man made idea as fact, which is not possible as the idea of a state is (only proven to be) man made. However, just because it is impossible to prove you are within a state does not mean that it is fact that you are not in a state. It may not be possible to prove you are in a state, but it is still possible for you to be within a state without proof. Are you able to prove that you are not within a state? I am not saything that if you are unable to prove that you don't live in a state, then it is true that you must, but I am saying that it would mean that it is possible that you do.

So, if that was confusing to anyone: It is impossible to prove that you are in a state, however it is also impossible to prove that you are not in a state.

This was a really clever idea of a topic.


EDIT: Also, an off-topic question, I have been reading up on the Voluntaryism belief and was wondering what the opinion is on incarceration? It says that voluntaryism does not oppose self defense, would this fall under that category? If Voluntarisits (is that a word?) believe all forms of human association should be voluntary as far as possible, what would happen to someone who attempted to restrict that belief? For example, if someone raped another, the person being raped wouldn't have had sex voluntarily, would incarceration be a form of self defense to prevent this? I like the ideas of Voluntaryism, but was curious on some of these aspects. It seems like a jury of peers sort of falls under the voluntarisits beliefs? Also, do you live in Cali? If the state is too personal, what country do you live in? I am just curious because you had said you were going to school to become a laywer and was also talking about different court cases and was wondering what laws and such these would have fallen under.

 

To prove that you are within a state, one would have to first prove that a state exists. Your belief is that a state is a man made idea and therefore to prove that you are within this man made idea you would have to prove the man made idea as fact, which is not possible as the idea of a state is (only proven to be) man made. However, just because it is impossible to prove you are within a state does not mean that it is fact that you are not in a state. It may not be possible to prove you are in a state, but it is still possible for you to be within a state without proof. Are you able to prove that you are not within a state?

You cannot be asked to prove a negative.

Your argument so called, attempts to shift the burden of proof. I am not the one proposing the existence of something called a state. It is your contention such a thing exists and therefore it is your burden to prove that it is not merely a fiction.