Prove [Sythe]'s existence within a state

If all you are assuming is Not Q then it's a non sequitor.

Let's go set P = dogs live in space, Q = seven feet tall. So if P then Q == if dogs live in space then they are seven feet tall.

If all you were assuming is ~Q then your (sole) premise would be: "Dogs are not seven feet tall." It doesn't follow that they don't live in space.

Proving a negative is very difficult. In court presence within the state is an element of every statutory crime. A very clever legal philosopher I follow uses this argument and frequently wins in court because state prosecutors are unable to prove his existence within a state (and therefore that jurisdiction applies).

I put it to the government fanboys to see if they could prove even the simple matter that their beloved 'laws' apply to me. So far no one has even gotten close.

If someone else signed on your behalf it would be fraud (or in the case you lack legal capacity, it would expire the second you regained legal capacity.) The essential point here is that if the state is just an unsigned piece of paper it is not any sort of contract, and there is no agreement between 'citizen' and 'state'. What they write on paper and call 'the law' has exactly as much applicability to me as what people in Antarctica write in the snow with their pee.

If people use 'the state' as an excuse to put a gun in my face everytime I disagree with them, then I'm perfectly happy to point out that it is just a piece of paper I didn't sign, and that they are mere thugs using force to get what they want.

 

http://marcstevens.net

Buddy, roads existed before people D/B/A states seized control of them. And they are to this day built by private companies using money the people D/B/A the government stole from me and you. The people already pay for and build the roads. What the fuck does government have to do with it?

This is SUCH a bullshit argument and you know it. If I moved in next door and seized (with guns) the electrical network of your suburb, then forced you to pay me for its upkeep, and you then used the electrical system I'm already forcing you to pay for, does that mean YOU CONSENT to what I've done? No, you need electricity, some thug seized the network and is threatening if you don't pay.


Let's run back to the hospital argument. Imagine instead of income and sales taxes, you had to pay an organ tax. So in order to use ANY hospital within your geographical region (and remember, you're not allowed to start your own) you have to give the government a kidney. Are you going to walk up to someone who refuses to give a kidney and call them an abuser, a traitor, someone who is freeloading on the system because THEY WONT GIVE UP THEIR KIDNEY but, like every human being, need access to healthcare all the same?

How fucking awful. If you would put even 1/10th of the time you spend regurgitating what was taught to you in government schools researching history and what it is the people doing business as the government actually do, you wouldn't be on the immoral side of the fence with the looters, murders, slave owners and genocidal maniacs.

Final thought: If you think government is necessary, take a minute to verify that government was the number one cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.

 

You're retared.

All of the land at the north pole is. But even if it weren't what's your point?

 

Wow. Either you can't read or you don't know what fallacy means.

 

Depends who you ask. It's the ocean, there's a lot of international law around who controls which parts of the ocean. Generally people d/b/a a state will claim territory for 200km radius from their shoreline.