> What you're trying to do is extend this to nation states to provide a justification for a war of conquest and honestly, it's not really working. A bit of a st

> What you're trying to do is extend this to nation states to provide a justification for a war of conquest and honestly, it's not really working. A bit of a stretch. Very weak strawman.. What you’re trying to do in your turn is pretend that nation states operate by their own code of values devoid of the interests of particular individuals. So as long as the interests align with your political stance you see no problem in coercing other individuals into dying for your goals. I bet you won’t volunteer into trenches of Bakhmut any time soon, but you’ll happily accept the fate of those who are being beaten and sent there by force by the Ukrainian government at this moment. > Better check your nation's laws. I bet they're the same of not similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now. Note how quickly your arguments shift from being based on ethics (the virtue of agency) to interpretations of jurisprudence (state laws allowing to deprive people from the virtue of agency if self-preservation of the ruling class is at risk). In other words, you’ve got no ground for a moral objection if one day there’s a side to hold the power over Ukraine’s agency and sovereignty, as long as there’s a lawful declaration of Ukraine’s territorial and political subjection to that side. > Are you a 'sovereign citizen' or something? This is literally how law enforcement works pretty much all over the planet. You’d better address this question to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Mr Danilov, who happens to think that he’s sovereign enough to receive a preferential treatment from his employer that allows him to hide his adult male children in the US during the forced conscription of his fellow citizens. All in the name of the sovereignty that he and his family benefits the most, as you’ve demonstrated with your arguments.