Mental gymnastics your way out of that to say again that I'm as bad as a totalitarian.

You are as bad because you dont have a state to take care of people using their wealth to inflict force upon undeserving individuals

The states job is ONLY to have a military, police and a court system.

What nonsense did you just type up there, I can't figure it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGVRXavK-A4

Listen to this debate. Its a ancap vs a objectivist. The objectivist destroys him.

If there are people who inflict force upon undeserving individuals, then that's totally not an affront to my utopia of no one having power over others?

What other brain blimps are you capable of? Show me

Do you know what anarcho capitalism means?

No, I have searched for years of my life for my preferred ideology and came up with ancapistan completely randomly, it was pure luck and I don't understand anything herp derp

You really need to listen to the debate. Little boy

Ok bazoomer

I must admit I did admire ancaps for some days before I understood objectivism

Oh if you only knew how anti-government Ayn Rand was haha

I do know. She was for a rational government. Do you think I am for the US government as it is now? Or any other government in the world right now

She was for a government the same way a minarchist would be. As in, as small as possible.

Yeah. The government is supposed to have police, a court system and a military. Like I said. Also thats what she wanted. I do know these things. You however have not come far enough in the literature. Do not for one second think that any objectivist like the current government.

Military is not "as small as possible". The military will always grow huge.

A rational government would have a rational military proportional to the threat in the world

Ayn Rand imagined a world where the average citizen could technically fend off a tyrannical government. That's not possible when there's a standing military.

Ayn Rand was also for self defence.

It's easily possible, it just needs considerable support

That means having a rational military proportional to the threat in the world

You love to use the term "rational", yet you're not even capable of seeing why your argument is not a reasoned rebuttal to altruism.

It was. You are not smart enough to understand it I suppose. I guess thats why you are a ancap

No one who contradicts your views is smart enough.

That's because only your views can be right. Because they're yours.

I can sense your hatred of reason and the good

Not because they are mine. If I examine arguments against mine and find my argument wrong I change my opinion

Literally anyone here, no matter how knowledgeable, could argue against you, and you'd assume the default position that they're wrong simply because they're less intelligent.

Why not just use the obvious counter to Eden's statement being that for the enforcement of a nation's will, a military must exceed the power and ability of its competition

So thats your debate style now. I can never be right because I think I am right?

Yeah. a rational military proportional to the threat in the world

@Hexidecimark Well no, you see. That's a smart argument, and that's not possible. Eden has all the smart arguments.

Its not about it being a competition. Its about defending citizens from outside dangers. Thats the goal. If the threat is enormous the response should obviously also be enormous

Right, the military would never be used against its own citizens. Not a chance.

Threat scales upwards based on a lot of beans
For example, let's say you have two opposed, roughly equal nations, and a third much smaller one. Neither larger nation can move because mobilizing against the lesser power would weaken them, thus, the response to gain an edge in the overall position would be to increase military power.

You cannot rely on your neighbor's good intentions, or you would not *need* a military

I can't remember a single case where a government - excuse me, a *rational* government - has used its military against its own people (rationally, that is)

Heres another thing. Individuals in enemy threatful nations do not have rights. So you should do whatever must be done to win the war. In a act of self defense.

Hey? Did I say that I liked US foreign policy from 1945 to now?