A nation gets power by both the explicit granting to it via constitution or by common consent. But those powers are unique to the state, with no analogy to an individual.
What do you
mean by that, though? If the Iraqi Constitution bars Jews from citizenship, is there no basis on which to call this
wrong? If the people of Burundi decide by common consent to slaughter all the Batutsis, is there no basis to call this
wrong? WHAT LIMITS GOVERNMENT POWER?
You haven't even tried to address this question.
How do you distinguish between a case of self defense and a case of murder? In the end with both someone is dead.
As an armed citizen, I hope you know the answer: if the dead man posed an imminent threat of grave bodily harm, it was self-defense. Are you trying to equate the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis who posed
no threat with self-defense? On what grounds do you do so?
How do you distinguish between a police officer killing someone in the line of duty and murder? Because one wears a uniform?
EXACTLY THE SAME TEST AS ABOVE, because the police officer is nothing but a citizen who works in the security industry. But that's not
your view, because to you the police officer is not simply a citizen like any other. He's an agent of the "state," which has powers transcending those of ordinary citizens. So you should be asking
yourself that question.
--Len.