Someone thinks he has proven a state & citizens exist

[indio]

I can't believe someone is actually trying to prove an entity that is by it's nature abstract is real......

Citizen-Sovereign is a relation with it's roots in feudalism. Like Master - Servant , Agent - Principal etc...
Citizenship in the US is a legal fiction construct. Where is the Oath of Fealty that is required for such a relation to exist ?

The government has no duty of protection unless you can prove a special relationship with you as an individual. The only reason the government gets away with claiming anyone as a citizen or resident is they fail to object.

[RealSkinny]

NonEntity Wrote:

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

That probably is more accurate, since I could walk an entire country and claim everything I see by being the first one there, but if I never return to that same country in my lifetime to challenge other claims that arise, my own claims don't amount to much.


But again, this new line of reasoning is not very closely related to my challenge to Marc. Maybe I'll start a new thread for him. I want to win me some $5,000. :o

[RealSkinny]

indio Wrote:I can't believe someone is actually trying to prove an entity that is by it's nature abstract is real......

Perhaps we treat some abstracts as a factual reality. Pain is an abstract. It's a word we use for a feeling we have. I couldn't draw pain for you or take a picture of it and show you, but we still treat it as factually real. We'll even go as far as to say that if you cause someone pain, you would be in violation of the non-aggression principle. We might even say the aggressor owes you money for your "pain and suffering." Factually, what is pain and suffering? How can we be sure there was suffering at all, except because the non-aggressor told us he suffered? What is suffering?

There are other abstracts we treat as factually real. How about freedom? Everybody wants it. What is it? Can you show it to me?

Maybe I can't show Marc a picture of a State, but I might be able to make it near impossible for him to deny that he treats it as factually existing. And there was some talk of money as well...

[NonEntity]

RealSkinny Wrote:Maybe I can't show Marc a picture of a State, but I might be able to make it near impossible for him to deny that he treats it as factually existing. And there was some talk of money as well...

Dude. The "state" is a legal definition, right? Can we agree on that? Huh? So the problem is that according to the legal definition... (are you ready?)... it DOESN'T EXIST.

It's like defining 5 as being the sum of 2 and 2. It may sound good. Lotza people may listen to your ignorant rantings and buy into it, but that does NOT make it real.
If your definition contradicts itself, you need to go back to the drawing board. Either that, or pull a gun, and we all know which choice the "statists" have made.

- NonE

[indio]

Pain is a bad example. It exists biologically. Pain is the name given to a real phenomena. The common law is that legal fictions can not be owed allegiance because allegiance is based on faith. The evidence of the faith is reciprocal oaths. The STATE is imaginary and it can't have faith. It exists in word alone. Sorry you've been tricked.

Here's the common law.

Quote: A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide,94 in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta....

Now it appeareth by demonstrative reason, that Ligeance, Faith, and Obedience of the Subject to the Sovereign, was before any Municipal or Judicial Laws:

... A man Outlawed is out of the benefit of the Municipal Law; for so saith Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 161. and Bracton lib. 3. tract. 2. cap 11. and yet is he not out either of his natural ligeance, or of the King’s natural protection; for neither of them are tyed to Municipal Laws, but is due by the Law of Nature, which (as hath been said) was long before any Judicial or Municipal Laws.

Case of the PostNati

Citizenship in the US is a legal fiction. It is a statutory impostor of the common law rule.

Gives an entire new spin on "We are a nation of laws, not of men."
They ain't kiddin'!

[Dionysus]

RealSkinny:

There are different kinds of existence. There's the sticks-and-stones level of existence of physical objects. Then there's existence limited to the realm of mental processes/consciousness (arithmetic, for example-- nobody doubts that it exists, yet you can't hold it in your hands). For something to qualify for physical existence, it has to be able to be perceived by the senses somehow (or indirectly perceived by its effects on the physical world). For something to qualify for mental/nonphysical/abstract existence, it has to be able to pass certain "fitness tests" based on logic/reason/rationality, emotion, or what not (for example, there are all kinds of "mathematical impossibilities"). So, does the concept of a "state" pass the "fitness test?"

[NonEntity]

Dionysus Wrote:RealSkinny:

There are different kinds of existence. There's the sticks-and-stones level of existence of physical objects. Then there's existence limited to the realm of mental processes/consciousness (arithmetic, for example-- nobody doubts that it exists, yet you can't hold it in your hands). For something to qualify for physical existence, it has to be able to be perceived by the senses somehow (or indirectly perceived by its effects on the physical world). For something to qualify for mental/nonphysical/abstract existence, it has to be able to pass certain "fitness tests" based on logic/reason/rationality, emotion, or what not (for example, there are all kinds of "mathematical impossibilities"). So, does the concept of a "state" pass the "fitness test?"

Well if we're gonna get all metaphysical and stuff... It sounds as if you are saying, Dionysus, that unless a human can perceive something, it doesn't exist. I think you may wanna rethink that. Did x-rays and cosmic rays and stuff like that just start existing in the last century and not exist before? And what kinda stuff is gonna start existing in the NEXT century that "never existed before" because we were incapable of measuring it?

If you take Marc's analysis of it you are better off. The legal definition of a state is contradicted by itself. No need to get all metaphysical on it.

- NonE

[indio]

Don't get metaphysical??? When referring to sovereignty you can't help get metaphysical because it is supported by a blood oath to God i.e. sworn allegiance ,to the death, binding your heirs and successors.

The oath and bond that creates the relationship is as metaphysical as it gets .

That's the irony of someone trying to prove a political State exists in the non-metaphysical sense.

It's a non-sequitur.

The foundation of the relation is a metaphysical being. The law takes the gravity of the oath into account when determining rights and duties. It can't be separated out for the purpose of providing physical solidity to the insubstantial State.

[Dionysus]

NonEntity Wrote:Did x-rays and cosmic rays and stuff like that just start existing in the last century and not exist before?

Of course they existed. They have a physical nature. They're not simply mental constructs. Just because we couldn't scientifically measure them until then doesn't mean they didn't exist. What about arithmetic? Did it exist before humans "discovered" it? Now THAT'S metaphysical.

[Dionysus]

NonEntity Wrote:If you take Marc's analysis of it you are better off. The legal definition of a state is contradicted by itself. No need to get all metaphysical on it.

- NonE

I think you nailed it there. The "state" is self-refuting (so it fails the "fitness test"). A society is only desirable if it’s “civilized.” So, a “state” (which its adherents claim is universally desired) can be said to be a civilized society constructed around the principles of statism. Well, statism is founded upon violence and coercion. I fail to see how that can be described as civilized. Also, the members of a statist society (in theory) act in a civilized manner only because they’re forced to do so. It seems to me truly civilized behavior has to be volitional—you can force someone to act any way you want, but that doesn’t prove anything.

Sorry, “mattam” (or whoever)-- no 5000 bucks (or soup) for you. :bootyshake: :tongue2:

ETA:

I've always liked this:

Alice in Wonderland Wrote:“There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." (Alice)

"I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” (Queen)

The statist credo.

[RealSkinny]

NonEntity Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:Maybe I can't show Marc a picture of a State, but I might be able to make it near impossible for him to deny that he treats it as factually existing. And there was some talk of money as well...

Dude. The "state" is a legal definition, right? Can we agree on that? Huh? So the problem is that according to the legal definition... (are you ready?)... it DOESN'T EXIST.

It's like defining 5 as being the sum of 2 and 2. It may sound good. Lotza people may listen to your ignorant rantings and buy into it, but that does NOT make it real.
If your definition contradicts itself, you need to go back to the drawing board. Either that, or pull a gun, and we all know which choice the "statists" have made.

- NonE

Well what is the legal definition of a State? Does someone have a link?

[NonEntity]

RealSkinny Wrote:Well what is the legal definition of a State? Does someone have a link?

Well, Marc has spouted the thing about "citizenship" about a zillion point six times, but I don't have a link. It's sorta like, "Citizenship is a mutual obligation thing where you give up your first born and any pleasure in sex in exchange for them taking care of you and ogling your wife/spouse/mate/partner. But then they declare in court that they have no such obligation, even though the ogling thing may still apply. And since it's a reciprocal thing (you know, like a V-8 engine), if they don't have any obligation, neither do you. And then there's the part where a state is made up of the body politic, which is the "citizenry," of course, which we just showed don't exist. I'm not sure about the V-8 engine part of all this.

Got it? (I tride to be as kleer as I could.)

- NonE :biggrinblue:

P.S. To cleariphy: No Citizens - No State.

[eye2i2hear]

RealSkinny Wrote:Well what is the legal definition of a State? Does someone have a link?

Was this asked rhetorically? Otherwise:

First, do you have a copy of Marc's book, and have you read it? That'd be a great start.

Meanwhile:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Wrote:STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient [highlight=#E6FF99]body of persons[/highlight] united together [highlight=#E6FF99]in one community[/highlight] for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into [highlight=#E6FF99]one body politic[/highlight]; (q. v.) and [highlight=#E6FF99]the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions[/highlight]. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word 'state' expresses merely the positive or actual [highlight=#E6FF99]organization[/highlight] of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act. [highlight=#E6FF99]State also means[/highlight] the section of territory [highlight=#E6FF99]occupied by a state[/highlight], as the state of Pennsylvania.

2. By the word state is also meant, more particularly, one of the commonwealths which form the United States of America.
... [list of mentions of the word state in The Constitution omitted for brevity's sake --eye2i]

8. The district of Columbia and the territorial districts of the United States, are not states within the meaning of the constitution and of the judiciary act, so as to enable a citizen thereof to sue a citizen of one of the states in the federal courts. 2 Cranch, 445; 1 Wheat. 91.

9. The several states composing the United States are sovereign and independent, in all things not surrendered to the national government by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states, yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence, than of foreign alienation. 7 Cranch, 481; 3 Wheat. 324; 1 Greenl. Ev. §489, 504. Vide, generally, Mr. Madison's report in the legislature of Virginia, January, 1800; 1 Story's Com. on Const. §208; 1 Kent, Com. 189, note b; Grotius, B. 1, c. 1, s. 14; Id. B. 3, c. 3, s. 2; Burlamaqui, vol. 2, pt. 1, c. 4, s. 9; Vattel, B. 1, c. 1; 1 Toull. n. 202, note 1 Nation; Cicer. de Repub. 1. 1, s. 25.

STATE, condition of persons. This word has various acceptations. If we inquire into its origin, it will be found to come [highlight=#E6FF99]from the Latin status[/highlight], which is derived from the verb stare, sto, whence has been made statio, which signifies the place where a person is located, stat, to fulfil the obligations which are imposed upon him.

2. State is that quality which belongs to a person in society, and which secures to, and imposes upon him different rights and duties in consequence of the difference of that quality.

3. Although all men come from the hands of nature upon an equality, yet there are among them marked differences. It is from nature that come the distinctions of the sexes, fathers and children, of age and youth, &c.

4. The civil or municipal laws of each people, have added to these natural qualities, distinctions which are [highlight=#E6FF99]purely civil and arbitrary, founded on the manners of the people, or in the will of the legislature[/highlight]. Such are the differences, which these laws have established between citizens and aliens, between magistrates and subjects, and between freemen and slaves; and those which exist in some countries between nobles and plebeians, which differences are either unknown or contrary to natural law.

5. Although these latter distinctions are more particularly subject to the civil or municipal law, because to it they owe their origin, it nevertheless extends its authority over the natural qualities, not to destroy or to weaken them, but to confirm them and to render them more inviolable by positive rules and by certain maxims. This union of the civil or municipal and natural law, form among men a third species of differences which may be called mixed, because they participate of both, and derive their principles from nature and the perfection of the law; for example, infancy or the privileges which belong to it, have their foundation in natural law; but the age and the term of these prerogatives are determined by the civil or municipal law.

6. Three sorts of different qualities which form the state or condition of men may then be distinguished: those which are purely natural, those purely civil, and those which are composed of the natural and civil or municipal law. Vide 3 Bl. Com. 396; 1 Toull. n. 170, 171; Civil State.
Address : <http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm>

Black's Law Dictonary 9th Wrote:state, n. (16c) 1. [highlight=#E6FF99]The political system[/highlight] of a body of [highlight=#E6FF99]people who are politically organized[/highlight]; the system of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over such [highlight=#E6FF99]a body of people[/highlight].
[highlight=#E6FF99]Also termed political society[/highlight]. Cf. NATION. [Cases: Inter­national Law ~3.]
"A STATE is a community of persons living Within certain limits of territory, under a permanent organization which aims to secure the prevalence of justice by self-imposed law. The organ of the state by which its relations with other states are managed is the government." Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law
§ 36, at 34 (5th ed. 1878).
"A state [highlight=#E6FF99]or political society is an association[/highlight] of human beings established for the attainment of certain ends by certain means. It is the most important of all the various kinds of society in which men unite, being indeed the necessary basis and condition of peace, order, and civilisation.
[highlight=#E6FF99]What then is the difference between this and other forms of association? In what does the state differ from such other societies as a church, a university, ajoint·stock company, or a trade union?[/highlight] The difference is clearly one of function. The state must be defined by reference to such of its activi­ties and purposes as are essential and characteristic." John Salmond, Jurisprudence 129 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed.1947).

As Marc has often pointed out, the crucial definition of State comes via visiting the Ruling that included Citizenship:

Quote:Citizenship is [highlight=#E6FF99]membership[/highlight] in [highlight=#E6FF99]a political society[/highlight], and implies [highlight=#E6FF99]the reciprocal obligations[/highlight] as compensation for each other of [highlight=#E6FF99]a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society[/highlight]. Page 231 U. S. 10...
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. [highlight=#E6FF99]These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other[/highlight]. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827. Page 231 U. S. 23
Address : <http://supreme.justia.com/us/231/9/case.html>

referenced Adventures In LegalLand, page 223.

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition Wrote:Citizen. One, who under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of a particular state, is [highlight=#E6FF99]a member of the political community[/highlight], owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. ... "Citizens" are members of [highlight=#E6FF99]a political community[/highlight]... Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109.

[Dionysus]

Outstanding stuff, eye2i2hear.

It slays me how much effort the parasites put into obfuscating a really unattractive (to them) but simple truth: that you can't protect somebody by threatening them, and that you're not a servant if you act like the master.

[NonEntity]

eye2i2hear Wrote:Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. [highlight=#E6FF99]These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other[/highlight]. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects [strike]save that of eligibility to the Presidency[/strike]. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827. Page 231 U. S. 23

[right](updated to match current realities)[/right]

- NonE