I argue that the government of the United States exists. The government of the United States is the body of decision makers and bureaucrats that enacts policies that it enforces via an effective monopoly on power in a variety of geographically defined territories, although it exerts influence elsewhere.

I am unclear on what you mean by "The United States" does not exist. Do you believe that the US Congress does not exist and make decisions? Do you believe that President Barack Obama is a spectre of public imagination? That the man dos exist, but does not in fact make decisions that have consequences in the world as effected through a large legally and ultimately physically defined apparatus?

This debate turns on the assumption that "The United States and others have a moral obligation" of some kind. I submit that The United States cannot have any moral obligation for anything because it does not exist in the first place. If that is proven, then an obligation regarding its borders are completely moot.

There are two reasons it would be moot:

A) Something that does not exist has no moral obligation.
B) Something that does not exist has no borders, neither open nor closed.

"Do you believe that the US Congress does not exist and make decisions?"

The US Congress does not exist and is incapable of making decisions. The men and women who call themselves "US Congress" do exist and do purport to make decisions that calls for legal speculation.

"Do you believe that President Barack Obama is a [specter] of public imagination?"

The man, Barack Obama, who calls himself "President of the United States" does exist.

"That the man [does] exist, but does not in fact make decisions that have consequences in the world as effected through a large legally and ultimately physically defined apparatus?"

The man, Barack Obama, who calls himself "President of the United States" does purport to make decisions that calls for legal speculation.

Whether a "physically defined apparatus" factually exists would require further definition. I am not precisely sure what you mean by "physically defined apparatus." A "physically defined apparatus" implies actual matter that a person can observe. Please elaborate.

There are people with guns who will shoot them if Barack Obama says so.

"There are people with guns who will shoot them if Barack Obama says so."

Agreed. But I don't see how this is a moral border policy.

I thought we were still talking about the existence of the state

I argue that the system of Obama plus people with guns who will shoot when he says so is part of the United States Government.

Thus, the United States Government exists and can have moral obligations.

To take it a step further, one *part* of my argument - indeed, a much simplified version of it - would be that Obama has a moral obligation to not tell the people with guns to shoot people for living within a particular geographic area.

We still on the same page?

I do not believe we are on the same page yet regarding the existence of The United States. Sorry if I may have jumped ahead.

"I argue that the system of Obama plus people with guns who will shoot when he says so is part of the United States Government."

In terms of definitions, what is a "system of Obama?"

And in terms of facts, what is "The United States?"

Okay, good questions.

"system of Obama" is not what I meant; I botched the wording.

Let me try again: the system consisting of Barack Obama, the people with guns, and the institution of the people with guns shooting when Barack Obama tells them to, is part of the United States.

I define institutions as the formal and informal rules within which humans and organisations act and interact.

I define the United States Government as the set of legislators, executors of that legislation who possess a legal and formally prescribed monopoly on force as well as a widely recognized informal monopoly, and adjudicators of disagreements concerning legislation produced by the legislators. Barack Obama is the chief executor of the legislation, and the military is his forceful apparatus for executing legislation.

Thank you. Would it be fair to say that "the system," "institution," and "The United States" are all abstractions divorced from physical reality?

No, in fact I argue that those constructs exist because of their inalienable connection *to* physical reality.

"The System." Barack Obama exists. The military exists. The weapons exist. Barack Obama's orders to fire upon particular people exist, as ink on a piece of paper or sound waves in the air generated by his vocal chords. Those sound waves, ink or digital symbols are picked up by the auditory and visual sensory organs of the members of the military (who also exist), and translated by their brains into a set of neural impulses that lead them to shoot and kill people.

I can't imagine a stronger connection to physical reality - I'm fairly certain that children whose parents were killed by US gunfire would have a particularly strong objection to your suggestion that the system is an abstraction with no connection to physical reality.

The institution is real for similar reasons.

As for the United States, this is a name that I apply to the system. So that is a bit more of an abstraction, *maybe.* It is, however, quite real in that the words "The United States Government" are written and spoken all over, and the actions of the system mediated by the aforementioned institution are commonly ascribed to something that people call "The United States Government."

I am concerned that we are going to have to debate the meaning of the word "exist," which is likely above my pay grade. Let me know if you really want to do that though.

No, I don't need to hash the definition of "exists." Sorry if I seem overly pedantic. It is not my intention to only question each word you use. That would serve no purpose except to frustrate. I truly intend to nail things down without resorting to a purely semantical cluster-f.

Would you say that "The System," "Institution", and "The United States" are fairly interchangeable terms? I ask because I would like to return back to only talking about "The United States" since that's where we started. If they are not interchangeable in any way, that's fine too.

"The system" I'm talking about is VERY small in scope, and the "institution" is the set of rules that dictate how that system operates (president->orders->military->action) to operate.

This system is part of the US government, but there are other systems at play there (bill formulation->legistlative deliberation->executive approval of law->devolution of enforcement to sub-national actors), and many, many others.

Okay, so earlier I said "As for the United States, this is a name that I apply to the system."

I misspoke on that as well. The system of Obama->Orders->People with Guns/Military-> Action is *part* of a broader system that I call the United States Government.

That might help clear up what I meant.

So The United States is a body of decision makers and bureaucrats. Does a body of decision makers and bureaucrats have geographic borders, either open or closed?

To the extent that the people with guns south of the Rio Grande do not obey commands from Barack Obama to fire them, yes.

Ah, so the definition I submitted was actually intended for "United States Government" - missed that that word was missing.