> It does for me. No, I really don't think so even in your case. You must have a limit where if a law was passed saying it was okay to .... something, that you

> It does for me. No, I really don't think so even in your case. You must have a limit where if a law was passed saying it was okay to .... something, that you'd object. Even if only such that you'd recognize it in a movie and say "Not in my America." It really is the people who define justice. The state codifies and enforces that. We try people (Nazis, Saddam Hussein, etc) for crimes that were legal by the laws of their state. The Italians try American CIA agents with kidnapping for extraordinary rendition. This is a widely held, almost universal view, that justice transcends law. > It does in America. We (my government and likely yours) recognize North Korea as a country, but we don't recognize it's actions as legitimate. So pure minimalistic statehood - the ability to have and hold land - isn't enough for legitimacy. What, beyond statehood, does America have that makes it legitimate. Can you put your finger on what parts matter to you? > You need to use the same definitions of words that everyone else is using You're the steelman. I don't think that's compatible with definitional nitpicking. > > So the government is not made of normal people? Is the USA run by lizards or something? > you seem utterly incapable of understanding basic, well-known positions, and you imagine I am delusional when your comprehension fails you. The Lizard comment was valid sarcasm. You're not only not steelmanning, you're playing the victim. You're rightly being called on your use of the word 'normal' because you're hand-waving so much away with it, and being so dismissive with the article.