I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.
I don't trust the government to use force responsibly, especially on people who are not part of a social contract with it. The government's authority comes from the consent of the governed, not by force
> I'd consider deploying the military to be a much higher bar of trust than building and maintaining roads and tax policies, providing healthcare and education, etc.
What happens when roads are destroyed or barricaded for tolls, taxes aren't paid, or healthcare and education are withheld from anyone who isn't a white man? (to offer a few hypotheticals)
I am more ok with destroyed roads then with expansive war or atrocities and so on. Those cause way more harm. I not ok with racist education. By I am even more not ok with army being used for racist project - and that one causes more harm.
Also, by current legal standards, soldiers are supposed to refuse orders if those lead to genocide and such. It is so after Nuremberg after WWII.
I am very fine with the rare Russian soldier refusing to fight Ukraine. The one following orders when "filtering" or killing civilians should be prosecuted.
> When push comes to shove, it's about power. F.ex. the desegregation of Arkansas schools [0]. If don't have force to command, you don't have authority.
I would point out that segregation itself was hold by forces. The particular unit went there, because local ones were onthe other side.
I don't trust the government to use force responsibly, especially on people who are not part of a social contract with it. The government's authority comes from the consent of the governed, not by force