[Aeolun]

> I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch.

That’s exactly what the Chinese government is doing though. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch too?

China claims Taiwan just as Taiwan (more or less seriously, but I doubt with any will to ever try and recover it) claims China.

Or more like they both claim to be the legitimate government of greater China.

[nradov]

Possession counts for a lot more than theoretical legal legitimacy. Who is physically in control of the bulk of Chinese territory?

[howaboutnope]

> Possession counts for a lot more than theoretical legal legitimacy.

So in your mind, the act of murder "counts for a lot more" [0] than someone's right to their own life, and theft does not exist, since whoever possesses something owns it?

[0] What's the unit we're counting in? How do you "count" intellectual integrity or moral character?

[salawat]

Might does not make right in questions of rule of law.

Unless it's barbarism then. At that point I'm pretty sure the biggest functional nuclear stockpile wins though.

[tomrod]

Isn't that international law?

[Dah00n]

>Might does not make right in questions of rule of law

Sure it does. The laws are written by those who can enforce them. That is by definition those with Might. If that is barbarism then all of earth is under barbarism (and I'd argue that this is true).

History is full of good examples. The Nuremberg trials is a great example of Might Is Right. The exact same laws used against the Nazis never were enforced on US citizens.

[salawat]

Rule of law does not have baked into it that laws are written by the mighty, or even that they can or will be enforced, consistently or otherwise. Merely that laws exist, can be made, and unmade, and should be followed.

After all, there was a reason the Founders advised that it was a great evil to put a law on the books that couldn't be reasonably enforced due to the tendency to deligitimize the authority in question.

[samus]

The current status quo depends on the PRC pretending that Taiwan is ruled by a regional government, while the Taiwanese government has restricted its actual scope to Taiwan. To this effect, in 1991 Taiwan has added articles to its constitution to account for the fact that its government has only control over the "Taiwan Area".

The actual policy of the Taiwanese government depends on who is in charge at the moment. The Pan-Blue Coalition favors reunification, while the Pan-Green Coalition tries to assert a separate Taiwanese national identity.

The claim on the rest of China is still there, but only because it cannot be dropped in practice. The PRC would interpret dropping the claim on the rest of China as a declaration of Secession and Independence, which would have diplomatic and possibly military consequences.

[nl]

>> I'm no fan of the Chinese government, but trying to claim it is illegitimate seems a pretty big stretch.

> That’s exactly what the Chinese government is doing though. Isn’t that a bit of a stretch too?

Yes it is.

Doesn't make the OP's comment any less surprising through.