Prove My Existence Within A (GeoPolitical) State

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Muffins wrote:Do you think Jig? It's clear that you do, we've got nearly 3000 posts worth of evidence.

I think, therefore I am.

What part of "this isn't proving my metaphysical existence" doesn't seem to be getting through? I have much higher hopes that people that post in this section can at least read and put up an argument. But I'm not going to hold on to them if this keeps getting brought up.

Medo wrote:I think I was making a point and asking at the same time.

Well the problem with asking me is that no evidence has been presented to be of the contrary, and I don't believe in a state, so the evidence is assumed not to exist. Furthermore, I'm posing this thread in the sense that most (if not all) of the posters in this forum already believe in a state and participate with it. Therefore they must be able to show WHY they believe in such a thing, unless they never thought about the fact that it was all made up.

I understand what you are trying to do. So with looking at what you have to say regarding the state, what I am making out it is, that you do not exist.
Yes most things we know are made up, especially when it comes to a complex control system of a state. I am not disagreeing with you. Love the perspective.

Medo wrote:I understand what you are trying to do. So with looking at what you have to say regarding the state, what I am making out it is, that you do not exist.

Remember that the argument is not about my existence in general. Philosophy and metaphysics shouldn't even be involved.

But you're welcome for the perspective. The counter arguments I am presenting should be taken into consideration when looking at government and the power they have. They have the power, because of a fiction they believe in, to take your money from you. If you refuse to give them your money, they will lock you in a cage. All because they believe that the boundaries they have assigned are the state.

A nice book to read would be "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

Drifting a bit off topic, might I also recommend: www.mises.org and www.freestateproject.org , https://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia

Spoiler:

ok, then there is legal documentation binding you to the idea of the state, and physical evidence of you being within the physical state the idea describes.

attk master wrote:ok, then there is legal documentation binding you to the idea of the state

Do you see the error in that, though? Two or more people getting together to create a state is all well and good if they all consent to it. But if you're binding ME TO THAT STATE without my consent, it's coercion in the highest form.

attk master wrote:and physical evidence of you being within the physical state the idea describes.

State =/= the 50 states. And any documentation of my living here is signed under duress (see previously where I state that it all ties back to people who believe in it).

___________
Let's replace everything here with religion and see what happens.

So I am asking for proof that God exists. You state that because the bible exists, that is proof that God exists because God created the bible. Secondly, you state that because a priest signed a paper stating that I am a believer, I am a part of the congregation. Thirdly, you state that because the church is capable of forcing me to pay tithes to them due to this signed piece of paper, that I am a part of the congregation. And finally, you also state that because I exist and am capable of thought and have been in a part of the boundaries of the congregation, I am a part of the congregation because I am a human being.

You see that these statements all get dissolved because this would be classified as robbery and coercion. However when it hits the political level, people will put aside these ideas to protect the government because they have known government for as long as they have been alive.

I could drag this argument to absurdity, replacing "God", "priests", and "congregation" with "Rainbow gorillas", "my friends", and "punk rockers" and the point would be equally invalid due to the constant assumption that the state exists.

What I don't think you understand is that you are constantly referring to the state as something that exists, and not something that is created. The state is imaginary. The only reason people believe in it is constant ingrained thought across the world that we require a government and boundaries.

JIGL0JAY wrote:

attk master wrote:ok, then there is legal documentation binding you to the idea of the state

Do you see the error in that, though? Two or more people getting together to create a state is all well and good if they all consent to it. But if you're binding ME TO THAT STATE without my consent, it's coercion in the highest form.

attk master wrote:and physical evidence of you being within the physical state the idea describes.

State =/= the 50 states. And any documentation of my living here is signed under duress (see previously where I state that it all ties back to people who believe in it).

___________
Let's replace everything here with religion and see what happens.

So I am asking for proof that God exists. You state that because the bible exists, that is proof that God exists because God created the bible. Secondly, you state that because a priest signed a paper stating that I am a believer, I am a part of the congregation. Thirdly, you state that because the church is capable of forcing me to pay tithes to them due to this signed piece of paper, that I am a part of the congregation. And finally, you also state that because I exist and am capable of thought and have been in a part of the boundaries of the congregation, I am a part of the congregation because I am a human being.

You see that these statements all get dissolved because this would be classified as robbery and coercion. However when it hits the political level, people will put aside these ideas to protect the government because they have known government for as long as they have been alive.

I could drag this argument to absurdity, replacing "God", "priests", and "congregation" with "Rainbow gorillas", "my friends", and "punk rockers" and the point would be equally invalid due to the constant assumption that the state exists.

What I don't think you understand is that you are constantly referring to the state as something that exists, and not something that is created. The state is imaginary. The only reason people believe in it is constant ingrained thought across the world that we require a government and boundaries.

an idea is not simply just that. when something is thought, it is created. it manifests itself physically as electrical energy in the brain, creating an illusion of that object as a thought. in this case the object is the boundary of the state. just because something is imaginary, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. you may not particularly like being here, but you choose to be here. no one is forcing you to stay, you can go wherever you want. but yet...you're here. so you are part of this imaginary state, you interact with people within it, and you do so willingly. like i said before, there is physical proof of you being within this idea of a state, and you do exist. so you exist within the state. if you think of this as imaginary you have to take it to a much higher level, if this is imaginary, what else is? the state can be defined as anything, from california to the universe, you exist in both of these, as well as other ones. for an example, i will use a reality show. say for instance you're into watching survivor. you believe that the people are legitimate and not actors, you believe everything you see is happening and not set up. let's say this isn't true, and they're just actors portraying fictional characters. does that mean they do not exist? you believed they did, and you saw them doing things, now your reality has changed and they apparently didn't actually exist, but does that not mean they didn't exist? they acted like someone else, they took on another personality. they created a character, and they brought it to life and you witnessed it. existence isn't a simple subject, it can go many ways.

attk master wrote:the object is the boundary of the state. just because something is imaginary, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. you may not particularly like being here, but you choose to be here. no one is forcing you to stay, you can go wherever you want.

Yes, but if I leave the United States to Sweden, I am moving from one state to another. From one set of boundaries and rules to another. I haven't even consented to the rules in this country, and yet your argument is that I should go and find somewhere else to live? Your argument is that just because people believe in it, that it exists. If a boundary is the idea of a state, then the fenced plot of land I live on can be constituted as a state. Which means I request to be sovereign and not pay taxes. Whether or not 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 either.

attk master wrote:but yet...you're here. so you are part of this imaginary state, you interact with people within it, and you do so willingly.

You're not proving my existence within it. You're constantly stating that it's all an idea. You are stating that because I am a person, I am a part of a state. This is not an argument AT ALL. That is an assertion. It has no conclusion, no foundation. I do not pay taxes willingly. I am forced to because I can be imprisoned otherwise. My interactions with other people do not mean a state exists because that begs the question of the existence of a state to begin with.

attk master wrote:like i said before, there is physical proof of you being within this idea of a state

Which is to say, you are arguing the premise of the state existing before implementing me into it.

attk master wrote:so you exist within the state. if you think of this as imaginary you have to take it to a much higher level, if this is imaginary, what else is? the state can be defined as anything, from california to the universe, you exist in both of these, as well as other ones.

Alright, let me change this around. We are now in court, and you have brought me in for failure to pay taxes. You claim that my presence within the state makes me liable for taxes. Where is your factual evidence that a state exists and that I am present in it? Your argument of my birth certificate and social security number were debunked.

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. Evidence that I do not pay money to people who believe in the state does not constitute evidence of a state. So why can't you prove that I live in a state without continuing to state that it's imaginary? If it is imaginary, then you're saying that people are allowed to steal from others because of their beliefs.

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.

I have been watching this thread for a few days and am now curious enough to ask this...

Do you have an answer in mind and simply waiting for someone else to acknowledge it or perhaps is your point that there is no way of proving it or are you seriously searching for an answer to the question?

Gummy Bear wrote:I have been watching this thread for a few days and am now curious enough to ask this...

Do you have an answer in mind and simply waiting for someone else to acknowledge it or perhaps is your point that there is no way of proving it or are you seriously searching for an answer to the question?

Well in a way, this thread is similar to a "prove the existence of God" thread. However rather than dealing with things that are miraculous and supernatural, we are bringing a political spin to it.

Part of my point (and the counterpoints I bring up when Johnie/Atkmaster/Medo have posted) is that I do not believe that a state exists, and that that is something to think about when discussing political issues. Especially in this debate section. For example, the argument that the state has the right to make guns (or other items such as drugs) illegal starts with the premise that the state is something that exists to begin with. If the country were to disband (i.e the book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason ), individual communities would probably replace the larger conglomerate. The problem being that the country is "too big to fail" despite the fact that it is constantly coercing people.

My larger point is that the state is immoral and made up. The political group called "government" is just an idea of a collective. Its only binding power is to those who consent. I did not consent to the current body of government regardless of whether I did transactions or live within it. I am forced to under duress of being locked in a cage (since I cannot be deported).

not trying to gravedig but just found this section of the forums and wanted to contribute.

who are you trying to prove that you exist? from your point of view you do exist, everything you know and ever know could be made up in your head but as far as your concerned you do exist.
From my point of view you do exist because if I've made everything up and everythign is 'fake' you're still real in my mind.
So the point im trying to get across is that in our personal state of minds you exist because if life is some sort of dream or anything of that sort we decided to put you in it and give you characteristics.
I don't know if that makes any sense but thats how i see it

lgot wrote:not trying to gravedig but just found this section of the forums and wanted to contribute.

Like I said in other posts, there's no real gravedigging in this section.

lgot wrote:who are you trying to prove that you exist?

I am me. In a legal situation, proving I exist is something that would be necessary. This argument HAS been used in court before.

lgot wrote:from your point of view you do exist, everything you know and ever know could be made up in your head but as far as your concerned you do exist.

You're getting caught up on "existence" much like most everyone in this thread. From my point of view, I exist, but not within a state. I believe the state does not exist (a contradiction mostly). If you are going to reply to me, please re-read the posts already made and make a point of followup from knowing those points.

The problem is many people are getting hung up with the question. I believe you should have stated the question differently. "Prove my existence within a state" probably should be reworded to "Prove the existence of states and that I belong to one" . Everyone is trying to use metaphysics to prove your existence ignoring whether or not the state exists.

Now to your question about whether the state exists. I will agree with you that government is imaginary. There is no physical existence, yet it is treated as its own being. It is a widely agreed upon idea that most people take part in. Lets talk about the "land" you live on. Who owns that land? Do you own that land, does someone else own that land, or does no one own that land? You given the argument that titles of land can not be used as they were signed under duress. I'm assuming either your talking about a title, taxes, or maybe a lease to an apartment. Lets talk about you signing them under duress. Why do you think you pay taxes under duress? Definition of duress is simply: "Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment." OR "Constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.".

Lets start with the second definition. The word I'm going to focus on is illegally. If you mean your under duress by this definition then who's laws is the government breaking by getting you to pay taxes? According to you, you do not believe a state or government exists. If there is no state or government then there are no laws hence they are not illegally forcing you to do anything since you don't believe in the legal system to begin with. If you agree that they are illegally forcing you to do something. Then you must agree that these laws exists and are enforced by some higher power. If the higher power is not the state or government then what is?

Now for the first definition. "Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment." It is true that the government or state forces you to pay taxes on all land you own. If you do not pay your taxes then the government will seize all property you own to pay the back taxes. You could consider this a threat and use it to fulfill that definition. However, I like to think of it this way. Lets call the state "Bob". Bob spent billions of dollars and created roads, schools, hospitals, and hired people to protect us. In return Bob asked that everyone using any of these benefits provide a portion of their income to help provide it. Now you can say "I did not agree to any such arrangement". At the same time Bob can say that he never agreed to allow you to use his roads, schools, or hospitals. By using the benefits that Bob shares he assumes that you are agreeing to his terms. If you didn't want to agree to his terms than Bob has the right to deny you access to any of his stuff. I'm not saying that there is a law about it anywhere since you don't believe in laws. I'm saying that Bob would not provide it for you in the first place. Bob will not give you anything for nothing in return. So with that in mind you have some choices. You can acknowledge Bob's existence and his agreement and pay the taxes. You can deny Bob's existence not pay the taxes and not have access to any of the benefits Bob provides. You can agree to Bob's existence not pay the taxes and Bob will come get your belongings. With these three options only the third one will accommodate the definition of duress and the third one implies that you agree to Bob's existence.


If you pay the taxes you can not claim your doing it under duress unless your admitting the government exists. Sure, you can put up a fence and claim a sovereign territory. Then you also don't get to use the schools, roads, or any other thing the imaginary government provides.


(I'm hoping this actually fits the argument your looking for)

gavonas wrote:The problem is many people are getting hung up with the question. I believe you should have stated the question differently. "Prove my existence within a state" probably should be reworded to "Prove the existence of states and that I belong to one" . Everyone is trying to use metaphysics to prove your existence ignoring whether or not the state exists.

I added an edit to my original post. If that is not satisfactory, I'll fix the title as well.

gavonas wrote:Now to your question about whether the state exists. I will agree with you that government is imaginary. There is no physical existence, yet it is treated as its own being. It is a widely agreed upon idea that most people take part in.

Alright, good. We have established that the government's existence is purely a concept of an enforced label.

gavonas wrote:Lets talk about the "land" you live on. Who owns that land? Do you own that land, does someone else own that land, or does no one own that land?

I do not own the land. The land is owned by a property owner who owns it by the government, or by the government itself. As I stated before, regardless of circumstances, the permit to own the land is signed under duress as squatting is, under most circumstances, illegal.

gavonas wrote:You given the argument that titles of land can not be used as they were signed under duress. I'm assuming either your talking about a title, taxes, or maybe a lease to an apartment. Lets talk about you signing them under duress. Why do you think you pay taxes under duress? Definition of duress is simply: "Threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment." OR "Constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.".

Let's take for example, my ownership of the land. If I purchase the land I live on, I will have to pay property taxes to the US government. If I do not, I will be thrown in jail for tax evasion. My permits, title, etc are all signed under duress because rather than an agreement between me and the property owner, my agreement is between me, the property owner, and the government despite there being no contract between me and the government. If me and the property owner do not believe in the governments existence, we are still forced to pay money to them.

gavonas wrote:Lets start with the second definition. The word I'm going to focus on is illegally. If you mean your under duress by this definition then who's laws is the government breaking by getting you to pay taxes?

By definition, the government decides the law. The problem with your argument is that you assume that the government exists and that its enforcement of law is valid before you even state your question. This creates an impasse that we can't truly argue. So to answer your question, whose laws? The natural law. Which is both facetious and somewhat true at once.

gavonas wrote:According to you, you do not believe a state or government exists. If there is no state or government then there are no laws hence they are not illegally forcing you to do anything since you don't believe in the legal system to begin with.

Incorrect. The people who believe in the governments existence are forcing me to pay taxes. Even if I don't believe in the legal system, my disbelief only has so much power in the court.

gavonas wrote:If you agree that they are illegally forcing you to do something. Then you must agree that these laws exists and are enforced by some higher power. If the higher power is not the state or government then what is?

Now here is where we drift off a bit. I am not saying I believe in no government. I would love a smaller government. But the government is a fabrication, as we have already established. You can only be governed if you consent to the idea. Why is it, then, that the government is able to force its ideas on people who do not consent? If I want to operate outside of the governments power without having to leave, why is that not possible? Because the majority of people who do believe in the governments existence and claim to the boundaries have already decided that I am a part of it before I was even born.

gavonas wrote:However, I like to think of it this way. Lets call the state "Bob". Bob spent billions of dollars and created roads, schools, hospitals, and hired people to protect us. In return Bob asked that everyone using any of these benefits provide a portion of their income to help provide it. Now you can say "I did not agree to any such arrangement". At the same time Bob can say that he never agreed to allow you to use his roads, schools, or hospitals. By using the benefits that Bob shares he assumes that you are agreeing to his terms. If you didn't want to agree to his terms than Bob has the right to deny you access to any of his stuff. I'm not saying that there is a law about it anywhere since you don't believe in laws. I'm saying that Bob would not provide it for you in the first place. Bob will not give you anything for nothing in return. So with that in mind you have some choices. You can acknowledge Bob's existence and his agreement and pay the taxes. You can deny Bob's existence not pay the taxes and not have access to any of the benefits Bob provides. You can agree to Bob's existence not pay the taxes and Bob will come get your belongings. With these three options only the third one will accommodate the definition of duress and the third one implies that you agree to Bob's existence.

I'll just go over this:

This whole thing 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. Affirming its existence by an individual does not mean that the state is affirmed to exist.

You have shifted the debate to whether I am allowed to use things that were created by people who believed in the state, and that the state has ownership of these things and therefore is allowed to force me to pay numerous taxes for its usage. Even if I lived in the forest and was paid with cash, I would still have to pay sales taxes, and other forms of taxes on my day-to-day activities. Again, a tax does NOT affirm the existence of the state. Merely that they are robbing me to pay for them.

gavonas wrote:If you pay the taxes you can not claim your doing it under duress unless your admitting the government exists. Sure, you can put up a fence and claim a sovereign territory. Then you also don't get to use the schools, roads, or any other thing the imaginary government provides.

So your argument is this:

People believe that a government exists. These people build roads, schools, etc. They create buildings dedicated to the idea of government. Anyone born within the boundary that the government creates becomes a member of the idea (which is impossible) due to two signatures, neither of which are the person who was born. The person then grows up and is legally bound to use a number of services provided by the people who believe in government. The person living withing the boundary that government creates enables them to extract taxes out of their paycheck, all because there is no option to the contrary.

This uses a multitude of misconceptions and fallacies:
1) That the state exists is already assumed at the beginning of this. The state cannot be assumed to exist.
2) That extracting taxes from someone due to their usages of things that people who believe in the state (an idea) has laid claim to (impossible) is somehow a valid concept. (Argumentum ad populum)
3) That the existence of things created or worked on by people who believe in the state proves the existence of the state.
4) That I, and others, should have guns pointed at us to extract money from us to pay for goods and services of the rest of the members of the state, regardless if we actually use those goods or services (Keep in mind that tax dollars fund wars, which I am not a part of, therefore my tax dollars are being used on things I do not want them to be used for).
5) If you think paying taxes is voluntary then try not paying them.

Do not confuse the sum of all voluntary transactions between people with the violence of the ruling class that predates us right now. No one refuses to include me in an economic transactions because I believe in the non-agression axiom. Actually, it is the very reason they are willing to trade with me in the first place.

In the fragment of Earth's time seen through your eyes as your existence, a body of observations made by your own mind have been made:

1- You believe you exist, thus
2- You follow whatever you can
3- In this case, you follow what you conceive to be a lot of information, but your brain has been conformed to believe such by random chance. (lets not get into an argument over whether human existence is random or not, just accept that it is for the sake of the current argument)
4- Your mind prioritizes said information, putting things such as how to be involved with the rest of humanity, before falsehoods and time-wasting contrapositive theories
5- Thus, you believe, because you want to believe given no other evidence so far, that you, in this very period of time, are in a geological location that has been specified to you via information transferred from a brain, essentially just another observation of yours
6- You are also told that this geological location in which you 'live' and believe you live in, has a body of observers that use their observations (because somehow they are better than other's observations) to create binding laws for you to follow, essentially furthering your following of information/outside observations
7- (Off track chronologically but still important) As your lineage developed this circumstance into it's instinct before you, you came out predisposed to living a life of conformity and accepting and observing more than you create on your own. (Do you ever think: What would happen if I just? Now understand that that thought, in it of itself, expresses one's lack of understanding and knowledge about the infinite possibilites, the irreversabilities of life, death, and the numberless phases of in-between)
8- Now that you are a figment of the populus, living life as a mirror image of a mirror image of a mirror image of you, (everyone looks at someone else to learn what to do, and when they get looked at they still don't know what to show) you now generally have to accept that at this point in time, because you have been told so, you live under a body of law known as a state.
9- For confirmation, throw a rock up into the air. When the rock lands, mark an x. Go on google maps (Don't worry, you have to accept this information, its a 'reliable source') and figure out where that x was. Now scroll out a bit. What state does this reliable source tell you you were in at the time of throwing the rock? Let's assume plate-movement and all else don't occur in the time it takes for you to get from the x to your smartphone.

10- Fin. Questions comments concerns

wizardian20 wrote:In the fragment of Earth's time seen through your eyes as your existence, a body of observations made by your own mind have been made

I'll stop you right there. Nobody cares. Re-read the thread. I've repeated myself one too many times.

If you're not even going to bother to read 2 entire pages of me telling people that "prove my existence" is not my metaphysical existence, how can I be bothered to read the nonsense you laid out?

JIGL0JAY wrote:

wizardian20 wrote:In the fragment of Earth's time seen through your eyes as your existence, a body of observations made by your own mind have been made

I'll stop you right there. Nobody cares. Re-read the thread. I've repeated myself one too many times.

If you're not even going to bother to read 2 entire pages of me telling people that "prove my existence" is not my metaphysical existence, how can I be bothered to read the nonsense you laid out?

I believe you're predisposed to make such a statement, given other recent arguments. Had you actually read the rest of my bullshit I think you would clearly understand that the overarching thesis relates to what your thread is about. I should hope that in the future a few lines of text isn't too much of a burden kiddo.

Although I would generally accept that my opening is rather similar to those previous to mine have been. I would know that considering I read them. Even the long ones.

wizardian20 wrote:a body of observations made by your own mind have been made
1- You believe you exist, thus

Well congratulations, you have answered nothing.

wizardian20 wrote:2- You follow whatever you can

Jumble of words thrown together.

wizardian20 wrote:3- In this case, you follow what you conceive to be a lot of information, but your brain has been conformed to believe such by random chance. (lets not get into an argument over whether human existence is random or not, just accept that it is for the sake of the current argument)

We're currently sitting at #3 and no mention of the state is given. We're currently discussing my brain activity, which has 0 purpose in a thread like this.

wizardian20 wrote:4- Your mind prioritizes said information, putting things such as how to be involved with the rest of humanity, before falsehoods and time-wasting contrapositive theories

You are now attempting to say that psychology "involves me" with "the rest of humanity". I don't know if you imply a state here or not, but you still do not create any sort of argument.

wizardian20 wrote:5- Thus, you believe, because you want to believe given no other evidence so far, that you, in this very period of time, are in a geological location that has been specified to you via information transferred from a brain, essentially just another observation of yours

Geographical location is all well and good. But as repeated before, has 0 persuasiveness in it and is not an argument for the existence of a state.

wizardian20 wrote:6- You are also told that this geological location in which you 'live' and believe you live in, has a body of observers that use their observations (because somehow they are better than other's observations) to create binding laws for you to follow, essentially furthering your following of information/outside observations

Now I'm going to stop you right here.

"You are also told" implies either that the state has always existed and someone is telling me as such, or that there is someone who believes in the states existence is telling me about its existence. Telling me it exists does not mean anything to me.

wizardian20 wrote:7- (Off track chronologically but still important) As your lineage developed this circumstance into it's instinct before you, you came out predisposed to living a life of conformity and accepting and observing more than you create on your own. (Do you ever think: What would happen if I just? Now understand that that thought, in it of itself, expresses one's lack of understanding and knowledge about the infinite possibilites, the irreversabilities of life, death, and the numberless phases of in-between)

"You came out predisposed to living a life of conformity" - So basically, you're currently leading me to believe that your argument is that "Because you can observe things, and people live in a state, you observe a state's existence and therefore your predisposition is to succumb to that".

wizardian20 wrote:Now that you are a figment of the populus

A family is a group of genetically related people who agree to live together. -- The members don't have to believe they are in a family for it to be a valid abstraction. Likewise a company or partnership is a group of people who agree to do business under a certain set of pre-agreed upon rules. These are both valid abstractions.

I have yet to hear a valid abstraction for a state. If you just defined the state as "a group of people" (populous), then your argument is "You are a person therefore you belong to a populous."

wizardian20 wrote:9- For confirmation, throw a rock up into the air. When the rock lands, mark an x. Go on google maps (Don't worry, you have to accept this information, its a 'reliable source') and figure out where that x was. Now scroll out a bit. What state does this reliable source tell you you were in at the time of throwing the rock? Let's assume plate-movement and all else don't occur in the time it takes for you to get from the x to your smartphone.

"What state does this reliable source tell you you were in" implies that boundaries justify a state. Are you telling me that this house I live in is a state because it has a fence around it?

So let's summarize your arguments:
I am predisposed to conformity, therefore am predisposed to accept the idea of a state
I am a part of a populous, therefore am part of a group of people in a state
I am within a boundary of a geographical area that is defined by people who believe in the states existence, therefore what I do within the state is actively contributing to it.

None of these have any merit, and I have debunked them in the past. Congratulations, I just reviewed your post and you have contributed nothing. Next time, try presenting an actual argument.

You know I could go about presenting the underlying truths behind each point, but I believe it'd be harder to get you to see a view point different from your own than it would be to pull your head out of your ass about reasoning and logic. Purely out of concern, what is your level of education?

wizardian20 wrote:You know I could go about presenting the underlying truths behind each point, but I believe it'd be harder to get you to see a view point different from your own than it would be to pull your head out of your ass about reasoning and logic. Purely out of concern, what is your level of education?

College level, with an interest in law. Let me repeat the main points that were presented in the past two pages, and the reasons they are faulty.

"You think, therefore [...]" --- Metaphysics, and not a part of a legal definition of the state. Remember that the argument is not about my existence in general. Philosophy and metaphysics shouldn't even be involved.

"You live within the boundaries of a (country/state/area)" --- The land has existed for longer than the state/country. The boundaries are mainly arbitrary and do not bring anything to the table in terms of the states existence and my existence inside of it.

"You pay taxes or use public services, therefore are participating in the state" --- Taxes are coercion and therefore I am forced to pay for the public services. My usage of things that are partially paid for by myself does not mean the state exists or that I am actually a part of it.

"There is documentation of your existence in the state (birth ceritificate, social security number, etc), therefore you are a part of the state" --- I did not sign these documents, and that means that they are not legally binding to my person. They are only considered legally binding due to the fact that people who believe in the state enforce them.

Do you personally understand your existence in whatever state you live in?

Also I apologize for acting so uncouth. If you're wondering, it was your sig that inspired me to go get one of my own, with the great SLJ

wizardian20 wrote:Do you personally understand your existence in whatever state you live in?

Why are you asking me to clarify? I'm not the one presenting premises and arguments, I am providing rebuttals. I am asking for proof that I exist in a state. I am not presupposing that a state exists in my request for proof. I am asking for proof because of a variety of things have come up currently in this thread that I feel could be answered by the explanation that the state is an imaginary concept and therefore does not have to be subscribed to by everyone within arbitrary boundaries.

Some of these things that came up are taxes (coerced monetary payment), immigration (arbitrary boundaries of a country), and documentation (contracts I did not sign). All of these are basically meaningless when I do not subscribe to the idea of government but are forced upon me.

I think I understand what your beliefs are, but it comes down to a simple principle, one that suggests that you are right. One poster said that you can wish all you want but the inevitable will still happen, or some such thing which I thought true, however I now realize I misunderstood what you are getting at. There is no way anything whatsoever, prescribed as fact or otherwise, can cause your consent in its belief. Willingly, you choose to accept that you exist. Unwillingly you take part in a government forced upon you. In both cases you can choose not to subscribe to such beliefs. Interestingly enough, my entire previous argument focused around the idea that your consent was unimportant, but I guess you aren't concerned with what goes for the rest of humanity in this situation.

wizardian20 wrote:There is no way anything whatsoever, prescribed as fact or otherwise, can cause your consent in its belief.

While that may be true, the reason I am posing this challenge is so that those involved will present evidence of the existence of the state and therefore lead me to believe them. It is simple.

I ask for concrete evidence of the existence of a state. You present evidence. If that evidence holds up to tests, then it is fact, and therefore accepted as a reality. If I do not consent to this reality, I am a fool.

wizardian20 wrote:Willingly, you choose to accept that you exist. Unwillingly you take part in a government forced upon you. In both cases you can choose not to subscribe to such beliefs. Interestingly enough, my entire previous argument focused around the idea that your consent was unimportant, but I guess you aren't concerned with what goes for the rest of humanity in this situation.

Except that choosing whether I exist or not is a matter of my own personal belief set, and concerns no one but myself. People use their belief in the existence of government to mandate how others must act. Consent is entirely important to a government system, but government is also set up without any base for itself but disregards that to enact laws against non-consenting individuals. Again, I reference things such as taxes which are forced out of individuals living within arbitrary boundaries.

Let us assume for arguments sake that you are a naturally occuring entity and that you do exist. Therefore for you to posses the cognative abilities required to respond to this post and a sustainable biological make up you must in fact exist in and belong to a minimum of two states: the liquid and solid states.

Ergo, you exist in not only one, but a minimum of two states to which it can also be said that you belong. Next retarded question please.