Prove my existence within a state

[sneaky82]

Sythe although you may interact with me via the world wide web but there are still a number of reason’s I know you truely exist
For one there is no super computer that can intelligently post and respond as you have. Even if they did why would they waste such an asset to entertain others. Let’s say that you are somehow some supercomputer that they decided to use to post on a runescape cheating site you would still exist maybe not in a human form or even computer form but you are still interacting with me by posting on these foums thus the very proof of this interaction proofs you exist. In what form I have no clue for all I know you are a simple program developed to respond to others comments.

Posted this while back just wanted to see a rebuttal

 

Posted this while back just wanted to see a rebuttal

Not asking you to prove my existence. Such would be trivial. Go back and read the thread if you don't understand the original challenge.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

Not asking you to prove my existence. Such would be trivial. Go back and read the thread if you don't understand the original challenge.

It would actually be impossible, sensory inputs cannot be assumed to be correct, but that's beside the point.

I want to argue with you on this starting from a different standpoint.

The purpose of government: to provide heightened levels of life, liberty, and equality than those found in the natural, "chaotic", state.
Governments drawbacks: You are basically a slave to the government. You are forced to pay taxes and abide by their law code or face punishment. You have no choice in the matter of where you are born and therefore what sovereign area you are a part of.

Do you not agree with Hobbes' definition of government as a necessary evil? I do not see how a privatized, or a lack of a, governmental system would provide a better standard of life, liberty, and equality for all. If you can explain how such a system would, I, and many others, would completely change their views on this matter.

 

It would actually be impossible, sensory inputs cannot be assumed to be correct, but that's beside the point.

You already assume them to be correct in order to disagree with me. Your statement is a performative contradiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction) It is also vile agnosticism. If you want to debate me then I suggest you stop posing self-contradictory premises, as I have no intention of debating someone who cannot identify basic reality.

The purpose of government: to provide heightened levels of life, liberty, and equality than those found in the natural, "chaotic", state.
Governments drawbacks: You are basically a slave to the government. You are forced to pay taxes and abide by their law code or face punishment. You have no choice in the matter of where you are born and therefore what sovereign area you are a part of.

Well I don't agree with your defined purpose. Historically the purpose of the government is to rob the economic class to pay the political class, and such is how it has always been. But even assuming I agreed with you, your statement is again a contradiction. It cannot be there to ensure liberty if you are also a slave due to its existence.

Do you not agree with Hobbes' definition of government as a necessary evil? I do not see how a privatized, or a lack of a, governmental system would provide a better standard of life, liberty, and equality for all. If you can explain how such a system would, I, and many others, would completely change their views on this matter.

No I do not. Government is an unnecessary evil, exactly as slavery and religion are. I'm not interested morally in how a voluntaryist society would work, I'm only interested in eliminating violence and coercion. How people deal with eachother in a voluntary society is entirely up to them.

If you want to know more about voluntaryist / libertarian models of how society may function, read or listen to For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. ( http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 )


You believe you have an informed position on this. I am here to suggest you do not. You have not read your opposition, so how could you possibly appreciate the facts of the matter in an unbiased way?

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

You already assume them to be correct in order to disagree with me. Your statement is a performative contradiction. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction) It is also vile agnosticism. If you want to debate me then I suggest you stop posing self-contradictory premises, as I have no intention of debating someone who cannot identify basic reality.

I don't think it's a contradiction to doubt that which I do not certainly know yet act on the assumption that what I believe to be true (what we see as reality) is true. It may be naive, but even if the world as I see it is imagined by me or in another state contrary to what is purported to be reality, I still care to debate on issues such as this, even if they serve no ultimate purpose, in order to educate myself.

If you want to know more about voluntaryist / libertarian models of how society may function, read or listen to For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. ( http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 )

I'll listen to it when I have a chance.

You believe you have an informed position on this. I am here to suggest you do not. You have not read your opposition, so how could you possibly appreciate the facts of the matter in an unbiased way?

Of course I am biased, I have grown up in the US and taught classical liberalism. I argue my position, yet I am not unopen to new ideas. Of course, you too are biased and your vision clouded, as your goal of removing the immediate burden of taxes weights heavily of your ultimate decision of an ideal government and can impede your long-term vision. I will read up on your theories and listen to your piece.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No I do not. Government is an unnecessary evil, exactly as slavery and religion are. I'm not interested morally in how a voluntaryist society would work, I'm only interested in eliminating violence and coercion. How people deal with eachother in a voluntary society is entirely up to them.

This is what I expected you to say, and this is where my true argument begins.
I understand the purpose of wanting the maximum amount of liberty in a society, and therefore hoping to have government solely for the purpose of defense or peacekeeping, (or even privatize those). However, don't you think it is important to help create equality in society? One of government's main purposes is to create equality through, in the US, services such as medicare, social security, and medicaid which help redistribute wealth. People are born unequal, even though they have no choice in the matter, and, through your system, it seems they would remain vastly unequal. Now I know our system today in no way ensures financial equality for all, but it does a decent job ensuring equal opportunity. To touch on a specific point, don't you think giving everyone at least a decent education is of the utmost importance to giving them relative equal opportunity? How would such a system be possible without government?

 

I don't think it's a contradiction to doubt that which I do not certainly know yet act on the assumption that what I believe to be true (what we see as reality) is true. It may be naive, but even if the world as I see it is imagined by me or in another state contrary to what is purported to be reality, I still care to debate on issues such as this, even if they serve no ultimate purpose, in order to educate myself.

If your purpose is to educate yourself, and your means is to debate people using reason and evidence, then you have already accepted the validity of your senses. It is a contradiction for you to communicate a rejection of the validity of the senses, whilst relying on the validity of the senses to make the communication in the first place.

Further, if reality is a figment of your imagination then so am I, and you are debating yourself. But in order to debate yourself you must hold and believe two contradictory things at the same time. Thus it would also be the case that you are insane, and therefore debate is pointless.

you too are biased and your vision clouded, as your goal of removing the immediate burden of taxes weights heavily of your ultimate decision of an ideal government and can impede your long-term vision. I will read up on your theories and listen to your piece.

How insulting and ridiculous. Don't bother, philosophy is too good for you.

I understand the purpose of wanting the maximum amount of liberty in a society, and therefore hoping to have government solely for the purpose of defense or peacekeeping, (or even privatize those). However, don't you think it is important to help create equality in society?

No.

One of government's main purposes is to create equality through, in the US, services such as medicare, social security, and medicaid which help redistribute wealth.

So you want to point guns at people to draw everyone down to the same level? In fact you want to point guns at me and punish me for being more productive than other people.

People are born unequal, even though they have no choice in the matter, and, through your system, it seems they would remain vastly unequal. Now I know our system today in no way ensures financial equality for all, but it does a decent job ensuring equal opportunity. To touch on a specific point, don't you think giving everyone at least a decent education is of the utmost importance to giving them relative equal opportunity? How would such a system be possible without government?

Equality in the sense you are talking about is pure communism. It is not a goal of anyone who values freedom or justice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a naive altruist brought up in socialist public schools, rather than an evil lunatic spouting the same sophistry which was the number one cause of unnatural death in the last century.

Tell me. Why is equality desirable? The only way to have everyone have the same amount of stuff is if they all do the same thing. And the only way to have everyone do the same thing is to not let them do anything else. Welcome to communism. Pure slavery is pure equality. Everyone is equally enslaved. Is this what you envision as the end of your moral code?

To be honest, on this point alone I find it kind of disgusting talking to you. People who want equality for all also want responsibility for none. Justice is all about responsibility for your actions. Thus enforced equality is quite literally the opposite of justice. In otherwords, you want an unjust world because it is your preference to have one.

To illustrate my meaning consider a bum who does nothing because he is too lazy, and an entrepreneur who starts a successful business and offers employment to 20 people. You would have the entrepreneur earn the same as the workers, and the workers earn the same as the bum. You would bail out the immorality of the bum by punishing the virtuous acts of the entrepreneur and productive workers.

And here is another example, a bit more concrete:
Banks which did not engage in immoral lending practices remained stable after 2008. Banks which engaged in immoral lending practices were on the verge of insolvency and collapse. Your vision of a perfect world would see the savings from the sound banks deposited into the unsound banks, thus robbing all the of the customers of the sound bank to pay for the immoral practices of the unsound bank.

This is not justice. This is equality, the opposite of justice.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

How insulting and ridiculous.

It's relatively irrefutable that your previous actions and experiences weight on your view of concepts, as they do for all of us. Even you do not refute the idea, as you blamed my so-called socialist view on my upbringing.

Don't bother, philosophy is too good for you.

Ohh, so philosophy is now some elitist club? That statement is embarrassing. Also, I don't need you to tell me philosophy is too good for me, as I believe everyone should partake in philosophy. I also took a course in philosophy from a Columbia University philosophy professor, (Columbia founded the academic discipline of philosophy, so it is surely not too good for them), who told me I was very good at understanding, evaluating, and furthering philosophy concepts.

I have refrained from emotional, personal insults up until now while you have not. Yet while I can handle ignorance, I cannot stand arrogance and elitism.

To be honest, on this point alone I find it kind of disgusting talking to you. People who want equality for all also want responsibility for none. Justice is all about responsibility for your actions. Thus enforced equality is quite literally the opposite of justice. In otherwords, you want an unjust world because it is your preference to have one.

I'm sorry you're disgusted by someone born in an inner city having the opportunity to succeed. You wouldn't be so disgusted if you were born in the inner city...

I don't want complete equality for all, that would be naive (refer to your points on communism). I, and most other political thinkers today, would like to see relative equal opportunity for all.

I ask you again: how would an education system work without government?

Banks which did not engage in immoral lending practices remained stable after 2008. Banks which engaged in immoral lending practices were on the verge of insolvency and collapse. Your vision of a perfect world would see the savings from the sound banks deposited into the unsound banks, thus robbing all the of the customers of the sound bank to pay for the immoral practices of the unsound bank.

Unfortunately for you, you just delved into a topic in which I am, from what I can tell from your statement, most likely more educated, and this leads me to my next point.
Example:
Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, did not engage in immoral lending practices in 2008, as it was not a commercial bank. While Morgan Stanley held certain securities, called credit default swaps, which were grossly overvalued after the real estate bubble popped, the losses taken on such securities were not nearly enough to bring the company close to under. However, as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had failed, and the stock market had crashed, many clients began requesting money back from Morgan Stanley, at the rate of tens of billions a day. Morgan Stanley would have run out of capital if they had not received an investments from a Japanese bank and the US government, which restored confidence in the investors.

Without financial regulation, without the bailout, without government, the entire banking system would have failed, the dollar crippled, and the US destitute. So, without government, how would you regulate financial companies? Clearly, government regulation has always been necessary. How would you provide financial regulation without government? Would you suggest making immorality against the law? That drastically contradicts your other ideas.

 

(Columbia founded the academic discipline of philosophy, so it is surely not too good for them), who told me I was very good at understanding, evaluating, and furthering philosophy concepts.

So Columbia, as opposed to say ancient Greece, founded the discipline of philosophy?

I'm sorry you're disgusted by someone born in an inner city having the opportunity to succeed. You wouldn't be so disgusted if you were born in the inner city...

Oh boohoo. "I was born in a less well moneyed part of the western world, therefore I don't have to follow property rights."

Do you realize that entrepreneurs struggling in Kenya would kill for the property rights you are selling down the drain? These are people who have literally the barest of nothing, and who are trying to start farms and shops and factories, and they can't because they haven't the property rights to do it.

I, and most other political thinkers today, would like to see relative equal opportunity for all.

And thus responsibility for none. I know.

I ask you again: how would an education system work without government?

Do you really think government education systems work in the first place? Functional literacy in the US is around 60%. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litera...ional_Assessment_of_Adult_Literacy_.28NAAL.29 ) Only 15% of adults in the US can read or write at a university level. But perhaps your own ignorance is all the evidence that is needed? Your own professed university of excellence is an example of private education.

If you actually cared about the state of education you might take a minute to ask yourself if public education based on the Prussian model is even doing the job of educating people at all? How would you know? What standard of comparison have you applied?

Incidently, answers are here:
http://media.mises.org/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/7.mp3

And the rest of your future question are answered in:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87

Morgan Stanley, an investment bank, did not engage in immoral lending practices in 2008, as it was not a commercial bank. While Morgan Stanley held certain securities, called credit default swaps, which were grossly overvalued after the real estate bubble popped, the losses taken on such securities were not nearly enough to bring the company close to under. However, as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers had failed, and the stock market had crashed, many clients began requesting money back from Morgan Stanley, at the rate of tens of billions a day. Morgan Stanley would have run out of capital if they had not received an investments from a Japanese bank and the US government, which restored confidence in the investors.

If it is an investment bank and it goes bust due to relying on other things which go bust, then the investors should lose their capital. Why should someone who steers clear of risky investments be forced to pay to bail this shit out?

But of course you are the master of tangents. Taking us yet again on a sophist ride. Let's return to the initial point I was making, and that was that equality is not a desirable thing, as it logically results in responsibility for none, and property rights for none.

Without financial regulation, without the bailout, without government, the entire banking system would have failed, the dollar crippled, and the US destitute. So, without government, how would you regulate financial companies? Clearly, government regulation has always been necessary. How would you provide financial regulation without government? Would you suggest making immorality against the law? That drastically contradicts your other ideas.

Well first the dollar is crippled and destitute precisely because the government has been printing money for 200 years. Secondly, the government causes these bubbles in the first place by price fixing interest rates below market rates ( via political ownership of banking, and the fed funds rate ), and producing reams of cheap credit that anyone with a few political connections can access.

[youtube]5K4Os5eXPw4[/youtube]

To answer your question markets self regulate when they are not interfered with. This is perfectly evident in that people don't shoot each-other over what they think a loaf of bread is worth. The price mechanism is self-regulation.

And I only consider the initiation of force to be immoral. And, yes, that is against what (philosophically) the law should be.

You definitely need to do some more reading. If you don't like reading, check out some videos or audiobooks:

[youtube]m6G1rq5LdA4[/youtube]

[youtube]Xbp6umQT58A[/youtube]

I think I will stop debating with you now, as I find it unpleasant. I think you are more interested in winning the debate than in finding the truth. You have an emotional investment in your positions, and in seeing your debate partner publicly humiliated (via the attempted use of any fallacy you can get your hands on.) Further, your manner is unpleasant and your speech patterns are demeaning. Despite initially giving you the benefit of the doubt, it is perfectly evident to me now that you have little to no understanding of the majority of these topics, although you act as though you know much.

I don't find you pleasant here, and I don't think I would find you pleasant in real life either. Therefore I will exercise my freedom of association and cease associating with you. (Isn't voluntaryism great?)

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

I think I will stop debating with you now, as I find it unpleasant.

OK, fine. I was about to do the same for the same reason.

I think you are more interested in winning the debate than in finding the truth.

Incorrect, but ok. As I said before, I'm debating my side of the argument. It doesn't mean I'm not absorbing your proposals.

You have an emotional investment in your positions, and in seeing your debate partner publicly humiliated (via the attempted use of any fallacy you can get your hands on.) Further, your manner is unpleasant and your speech patterns are demeaning.

Ask someone unbiased to read through the entire argument and determine who sought to humiliate more and whose matter was more unpleasant and demeaning.

I don't find you pleasant here, and I don't think I would find you pleasant in real life either. Therefore I will exercise my freedom of association and cease associating with you. (Isn't voluntaryism great?)

I don't have anyone in real life who is my enemy, or even anyone who doesn't like me (well, teenage sister at times...but that's nature), so I doubt you wouldn't like me there. Even through your demeaning tones and unpleasant arguments, I'm able to separate how someone might act in a debate versus what type of person they are.

Once I had gotten through the social arguments, I would have proceeded to ask you two questions:
1. If there as no government, as the population sees as an all-powerful, generally uncorrupt machine of good, how would laws be properly enforced? With security services acting on profits, what is to stop them for doing immoral acts for the highest bidder? And what's to stop them if they decide to enslave the population?
2. How would you implement such a system?

Think about the first question and its corollaries. Losing the sense of the "all powerful government" would cause massive problems in raising armies (do I actually care anymore if Texas gets invaded, living in New York? Everyone on the same sentiment ends up getting conquered), enforcing laws (see above), and many other issues of great importance to the security of life and liberty.

While I too found debating against you unpleasant, I see no reason for you to hold a personal grudge against me. I agree that this debate should be ended, but I see no reason for you to end communication with me over a heated difference of political views. >.>

 

[N01s PeRfecT]

A state is just an imaginary title that we place on an ever-changing amount of land with inhabitants that form and abide by a set of laws which are inforced by an organized government.

Surely, the definition of a state must be dynamic, as it has to accommodate the many changing aspects of global politics?

If this is true, then one wouldn't be able to form a real resolve on the issue because one wouldn't have a solid platform from which to build their argument.

You'll have just as hard a time proving that what you call your 'state' exists, as you would proving that you exist in a state. (This is worded fairly poorly, my apologies.)

 

[Pshynosis]

The reality is just an illusion caused by the lack of psilocybin.
You only exist in my mind, in a fake dimension.

 

[howcow95]

A state is formed by a social contract, and a social contract was created by two non-experts as you have already mentioned. That means that technically a state doesn't exist because it is a following, and technically cannot be proven to exist. If a state cannot be proven to exist, therefore, I cannot prove your existence in something that might not exist.

(1) Most people believe in a god or ‘higher power’.
Therefore:
(2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist.

Or..

(1) Most people obey they law. The state regulates law.
Therefore:
(2) A state must exist.

So basically, a state follows the appeal to popularity fallacy.

EDIT: Someone said the same exact thing two posts above mine.

 

A state is formed by a social contract, and a social contract was created by two non-experts as you have already mentioned. That means that technically a state doesn't exist because it is a following, and technically cannot be proven to exist. If a state cannot be proven to exist, therefore, I cannot prove your existence in something that might not exist.

Non experts?

The social contract most certainly doesn't exist.

If it exists you'll have no problem showing me it with my signature on it...

 

[Imagine]

Non experts?

The social contract most certainly doesn't exist.

If it exists you'll have no problem showing me it with my signature on it...

What do you mean by showing you it "With your signature on it"?

My argument:

You exist, you are made up of matter. A state could be defined as a three dimensional "block" of space. (Or more if there are the 10 or 11 dimensions string theory proposes). Regardless, your particles of matter are inside one of these "blocks".

I think that's what you're asking, but I'm not sure if that was the question exactly.

 

What do you mean by showing you it "With your signature on it"?

My argument:

You exist, you are made up of matter. A state could be defined as a three dimensional "block" of space. (Or more if there are the 10 or 11 dimensions string theory proposes). Regardless, your particles of matter are inside one of these "blocks".

I think that's what you're asking, but I'm not sure if that was the question exactly.

So I pay my taxes to a 'block of matter'?

You can come up with any definition you like, but as I said many times previously it has to be consistent with the context in which the term 'the State' is used. Further, it has to be internally consistent as a concept.

 

[Imagine]

So I pay my taxes to a 'block of matter'?

You can come up with any definition you like, but as I said many times previously it has to be consistent with the context in which the term 'the State' is used. Further, it has to be internally consistent as a concept.

The government is an idea, an institution. You're not actually paying the "block of matter", you're paying the workers, like the policemen and firefighters, and paying for materials, (Which essentially are just a block of matter).

 

The government is an idea, an institution. You're not actually paying the "block of matter", you're paying the workers, like the policemen and firefighters, and paying for materials, (Which essentially are just a block of matter).

So which is it? So far you have offered the following definitions:
"A block of matter"
"An idea"
"The workers, police and firefighters"

When you settle on a definition, you are still required to prove my presence within it...

So which is it?

 

[Pockets]

Sythe, have you read Stefan Molyneux's books? If so, what did you think?

I figure this is the most relevant place to ask you.

Also, thanks for the awesome site

 

Sythe, have you read Stefan Molyneux's books? If so, what did you think?

I figure this is the most relevant place to ask you.

Also, thanks for the awesome site

Yeah I think stefbot is excellent. Also Marc Stevens, who runs the no state project -- from whom most of the arguments presented in this thread originate.

 

[bastz]

Where there is no anarchy, there is a state. Without a state, man lives in a "brutish existence" (Hobbes). In other words, the lawlessness that is present in anarchy promotes a constant, almost unreasonable danger to each and every human at all times due to the reasons that Hobbes also outlines: competition, diffidence, and glory. Essentially, all humans, with no state to keep them in check, will always try to get one step ahead of everyone else. The means through which each human attempts to get this step, however, normally involves putting others at a disadvantage in order to gain an advantage.

Australia is a state because it is not in a status of anarchy. It is not lawless, therefore there are laws. Using this logic, a legitimate state MUST exist in order for these laws to have any effect at all.

Your existence in this state is proven by the fact that you owe your general safety and welfare to the state. The state has accomplished its primary purpose of protecting its citizens. While you enjoy this security, you are confirming your place in the state.