You’re, not your. USA is a political entity, not a concept so it’s a very poor analogy. Capitalism did not invent the idea of getting paid for work, and feudalism wasn’t the only system that preceded it, please educate yourself. This is almost as embarrassing as the belief that we supposedly can’t say “yes, what one would call X today, did exist at Y point in time in the past.” You are right about one thing though, I’ve got better things to do than replying further so bye lol

1. Yes, it was your pedantic nature that started this thing, so of course you would think a typo is a sign of your superiority.

2. Political entities *are* concepts. 

3. Again, you do the thing where you just say I’m wrong, and then do nothing to rebut my claims, so I can’t actually reply to you. 

4. The reason I recommended you read Kripke’s book “Naming and Necessity” is precisely because his argument, and one that I agree with, is that when it comes to names and natural kinds, you actually *can’t* say “What one would call X today, did exist at Y point in time in the past.“ This is because both names, and terms for natural kinds, obey a very particular set of linguistic rules–to sum up his argument rather quickly, the serve as rudimentary markers, but don’t carry any semantic content of their own. I didn’t go any further into that argument, because if this conversation was this difficult for you, trying to have an actual conversation about theories of names and philosophy of langauge would have been disastrous to your self-esteem.

5. Bye! Thanks for reading my stories at least! Unless you’re just a random troll! It’s been…well, not exactly fun, but an interesting exercise.