Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
Current time: 08-29-2014, 02:58 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Marc Stevens
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 34
Views: 7447

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
02-17-2011, 11:54 AM
Post: #1
Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
I got this email today:

"5000 $ challenge"
"A state and citizenship are social constructs.
Empirical evidence for their existence are their rules, and the fact that said rules are enforced. Every formality of the state and every officer in it's employ are physical, recordable evidence of it's existence.
Having met the requirements for being a member of the social construct "Citizen" of the social construct "Austria" I am well informed of what consequences my actions might have. The consequences of being a member of these 2 groups are numerous. I can only provide general examples.
Social constructs are numerous, and very, very real.
Please let me know if you have any qestions and let me know how you want to handle the money transfer."

That is not proof and you have put the cart before horse, writing rules does not create a state and citizens. As I have stated many times, a state is a body politic and corporate consisting of citizens. Citizens are members of a body politic owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. You need to provide empirical evidence of this relationship, that is step one. There is no such relationship because government support is always compulsory.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 12:26 PM
Post: #2
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
Quote:That is not proof and you have put the cart before horse, writing rules does not create a state and citizens.

Indeed. I also never said that. There is actually a brilliant example in the history of the US: When the declaration of independence was signed, the british very much begged to differ that this set of rules constitutes a new state in the americas. Some shooting was necessary to make them change their viewpoint.
It's not the writing of the rules (They don't even have to be written) It's the enforcement.
The Mafia has rules. But it doesnt exist because it has them, it exists because it enforces them.

Quote:As I have stated many times, a state is a body politic and corporate consisting of citizens. Citizens are members of a body politic owing a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. You need to provide empirical evidence of this relationship, that is step one. There is no such relationship because government support is always compulsory

That is a very narrow definition, derived from commonwealth law. I understand how this might have some nostalgic value in the US and Britain, but for the rest of the world?
I much prefer Max Webers definition: A State is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.
Or Georg Jelinek:
a State has
Area
People
Force

Jelineks definition is still used today in international law. Both have the advantage over yours that they include more countries beside the US and the UK as States.
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 01:06 PM
Post: #3
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
mattam Wrote:I much prefer Max Webers definition: A State is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

Sorry, but even with that watered-down, dumbed-down definition, you still fail. "Legitimate" according to who? Oh, you mean according to the people who employ the force, and according to their abused, cowardly victims??? By that logic, the mafia's "protection agencies" are perfectly legitimate. Everyone who pays them tribute signs off on their "legitimacy."

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 01:11 PM
Post: #4
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
mattam Wrote:a [strike]State[/strike]Gang has
Area
People
Force

Fixed!


So the difference between the illegitimate mafia (a group of people using violence to get what they want) and the legitimate state (a group of people with a flag using violence to get what they want), is the flag?
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 02:07 PM
Post: #5
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
I'd like to take a crack at it using a logical argument based on some ideas I got conversing with NonE. I'll ask a series of statements and questions about the nature of a voluntary society, and you can respond by telling me whether they are true or false, and we'll see if it leads to the existence of a State within the voluntary construct.

The first question will be...

Do you believe it's factually possible to own possessions? Examples would be a car, a table, a shoe, etc.


What do you think Marc? Are you in or out?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 02:15 PM
Post: #6
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
Quote:Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~Philip K. Dick

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. ~Mahatma Gandhi
ps: fwiw, I do think the author raises a worthy side point for consideration when it comes to international meaning/consideration of The State... (but which has nothing to do with fact/existence/reality either)

Isn't it convincing to consider that facts regarding belief in a State (and/or Citizens) existence only becomes an issue when said Citizens wish to collectively do under that label what no one of them could convincingly argue amongst them as being legitimate to do individually? [on the word 'label' consider substituting 'banner', then 'flag'... then romp on to the collectives of the gang, the mob, the Nazis, the nation, The State...]

[Gloria sings it here: "Words get in the way..."]

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 02:38 PM
Post: #7
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
RealSkinny Wrote:Do you believe it's factually possible to own possessions? Examples would be a car, a table, a shoe, etc.

Depends on what you mean by "own." Ownership of physical things is a matter of temporary convenience. Not only can you not "take it with you," you wouldn't want to even if you could. Is this that whole "property is theft!" thing rearing its ugly head again? Good grief. Enough already. I've heard it all before.

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 03:08 PM
Post: #8
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
Dionysus Wrote:Is this that whole "[strike]property is theft![/strike]" "Taxation is theft!/tax protester" thing rearing its ugly head again? Good grief. Enough already. I've heard it all before.
Dionysus The Judge! [hammer gavel sound optional] Brickwall

Property: is it voluntary? (all the way down/through?)

[which is not to say or imply I've got The Answer (well, one that me, myself, and i-i-I like) either; but I don't find the tenets (tenants?) of Property and State, (other than numerically/collectively) factually, that distinctive; so I'm arguing/countering that it has no such ugly head nor has it all been heard-- logically consistently]

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 03:22 PM
Post: #9
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
eye2i2hear:

I don't think you understand. RealSkinny is one of those who believes that the whole concept of property is unworkable because the only way property can be obtained is through theft (I guess taking from nature's bounty is theft). And they don't abide any logic/reason/rationality that gets in the way of their beliefs-- if you don't agree with them that property is theft, you're defective.

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 03:50 PM
Post: #10
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
mattam Wrote:That is a very narrow definition, derived from commonwealth law. I understand how this might have some nostalgic value in the US and Britain, but for the rest of the world?
I much prefer Max Webers definition: A State is a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.
Or Georg Jelinek:
a State has
Area
People

Change people into citizens. And the definition has roots in roman laws.

And to show people, you've got to show more than force, That there is some sort of actual contractual relationship (a relationship not based on force) You can't have a corporation or organization of people as simple as a marriage without consent, how in the world can you make a state without it?

My pgp key ID:
0x3E4258F8382DE6D0
available at subkeys.pgp.net (and others)
key fingerprint:
2F0C 4109 C8C3 B8BE E0B9 84DF 3E42 58F8 382D E6D0
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 04:03 PM
Post: #11
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
[Image: hijacked-pirate2.gif]
Dionysus: I'm not sure at all what RealSkinny's core position is, nor the position of those you've touched on, and how logically sound/unsound such is, nor am I sure of my position relative to "defective"; but I don't know that hijacking (?) this thread further is the time or the place... :-X Smile

"Forum winners are those who understand the power of triggered emotions and that the sole purpose of an argument is to stray as far as humanly possible from issues and to stay laser focused on belittling your rival with the choicest of pejoratives." ~Srini Chandra
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 05:09 PM
Post: #12
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
Dionysus Wrote:RealSkinny is one of those who believes that the whole concept of property is unworkable because the only way property can be obtained is through theft

It's not theft. I just said there was no rational basis to make the claim except first in time.

But this line of questioning is different. I would ask you to participate, but you're not offering a $5,000 reward, so I think I'll save it for Marc. If he's not too Chicken, that is. :biggrinblue:
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 05:53 PM
Post: #13
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
RealSkinny Wrote:I'd like to take a crack at it using a logical argument based on some ideas I got conversing with NonE. I'll ask a series of statements and questions about the nature of a voluntary society, and you can respond by telling me whether they are true or false, and we'll see if it leads to the existence of a State within the voluntary construct.

The first question will be...

Do you believe it's factually possible to own possessions? Examples would be a car, a table, a shoe, etc.


What do you think Marc? Are you in or out?

Obviously I can't speak for Marc. I can answer the questions. You may or may not like my answers because they may not help you get to where you want to go. It occurs to me that if you can prove your claim you won't need any other person to participate in the process. Only at the end where a person says they agree or disagree. So, go ahead; ask the questions and fill in the answers for the imaginary other person. Ask the next question and fill in the answer of the imaginary person. Repeat as often as needed to make your case/argument.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 05:57 PM
Post: #14
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
eye2i2hear Wrote:Dionysus: I'm not sure at all what RealSkinny's core position is, nor the position of those you've touched on, and how logically sound/unsound such is, nor am I sure of my position relative to "defective"; but I don't know that hijacking (?) this thread further is the time or the place... :-X Smile

Sorry-- I was responding to RealSkinny.

RealSkinny Wrote:The first question will be...

Do you believe it's factually possible to own possessions? Examples would be a car, a table, a shoe, etc.

But I agree that we should get back on-topic.

He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it
He's a New World man - Rush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-17-2011, 06:03 PM
Post: #15
Re: Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist
RealSkinny Wrote:It's not theft. I just said there was no rational basis to make the claim except first in time.

I think, Real, that instead of stating "first in time," perhaps you might really mean traceable to "first in time" or "first non-challenged claim" or something like that. Does that seem to make more sense as to your meaning?

I mean, it sure seems that that person who is first in time can legitimately transfer that title (legitimate ownership right) to another person who would then be the legitimate owner. Seems like, huh?

- NonE

- NonE .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)