Culture and Respect

[kılıç_mehmet]

Either the state does have power, or it does not. Your second statement invalidates the first, as it is NOT the state, but the single individual carrying out the act who has the 'might' as you describe it. My argument with ordering a hit matches with your first definition of might (the state taking action) but you dismiss it with your second (only the hand on the trigger has might). This is what I am asking you for an answer about. Which of these statements do you hold to be true as they are contradictory? If I sucessfully order a hit, then by definition no other party was able to withhold my 'might'

Rather than a contradtion, I see a mistake on my behalf as I seem to have confused you.
I merely compared you to the gunman, not the gunman to and the state.
And obviously since both ordering a hit, and performing a hit are both illegal(for a reason), makes the law right by all definitions.

that is patently false. Acquisition of a firearm gives me more 'might' and by your definition more 'right'.

Acquisition of a firearm gives you nothing but a firearm. The legal use of that firearm is still for the law to decide, and the law reserves the right to deny or allow you access to it. If you acquire a firearm by means that are not within the limits of the law, then you break the law still, and subject yourself to the punishment of a higher position.

Studying the martial arts and sculpting a physique capable of applying those arts in a destructive manner is another acquisition of 'might' in terms of my ability to dominate the actions of another through force.

Yet again, each of your actions are still subject to the regulation of the law.
You only have as much might as the law allows you to have.

Do you disagree with the commonly accepted meaning of 'right' when used as an adjective as used in the English language?

No. As might still makes those defitinitions, meaning, "lawful", "moral" or "unjust".

As with the two men and bread example, where I'm speaking of a single control volume, there is nothing else to define these terms than might. There might be a third option of these two men "agreeing" on a common definition for these terms, but still, since there is no third party to enforce anything or judge based on these definitions, in the second one of them goes against the said definitions, the one who is mightier than the other will enforce "right" with "might".