The definition provides a test for whether something actually is the state Or, in the words of CGP Grey: "Bigger Army Diplomacy." So, the implication, and the

The definition provides a test for whether something actually is the state Or, in the words of CGP Grey: "Bigger Army Diplomacy." So, the implication, and the content of international law, is that if you have the power to enforce your will in a territory, you have the sovereignty. Someone who advocates for that approach to "activism" is advocating for a violent uprising by force. Someone who advocates for that from within a democratic republic, simply doesn't want to play by the rules anymore. It's the mark of an adherent to a particular ideology of activism, whose effectiveness (without some other group deploying or credibly threatening violence against the same target that they oppose) and morality in the face of extreme abuses have both been seriously questioned. Such was remarked about Ghandi's position that non-violence could oppose Fascism. So sure, if you're making an equivalency between the current US government and Fascism. However, that would be a prime example of false equivalency. There's more equivalency between white hooded KKK members and Antifa black bloc running around vandalizing and intimidating than there is between WWII Italy/Germany and 2018's USA.