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.
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
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
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.
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.
Not if you have a government with a strong constitution. You see if we dont have public education everybody wont turn into nihilists like they are today
I love how you always come up with excuses. Well, it works if, but not if. Only if, and then if, and if. But if not that, then it won't work. So it must be like this, and if that's how it is then it works.
