If anyone has the right to govern a country, shouldn't it

you're an idiot

not wasting the time to explain either soz mayn.

Maybe pre 1900's. War causes too much gdp damage now and is out of meta. Right now it exists to execute cartels such as Al qeada and isis to create investing opportunities in shitholes.

Sure, if you want to live in a martial state. The problem is that modern militaries are warfighting institutions and not governments. Needing to build your military framework to accommodate for statehood with modern militaries is actually a detriment unless you effectively turn it into a martial state.

Remember that, for example, in the United States, the President is in fact the Chief of the U.S military.

Gosh OP ever military run state in the last 100 years has really worked! You must be right!

File: 1484830701187.jpg (10KB, 193x160px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 193x160px

>>2274516
Well it kinda was like that. Kings and nobles ruled over the country ,owned the land and had the duty to defend it. Most of the kings creating their own country gained legitimacy through war. And then you have title inheritance and all but that's irrelevant.
I guess that the mix of popular support growing more and more relevant as regime evolved to be more representative killed that, as well as parliament and national assemblies.
But in effect I feel that soldiers are just poor Chancellor and law makers, so they'd (and always did kinda) delegate that to more specialized citizens. No ruler rules alone after all.

>>2274516
>Nietzchian philosophy
Dropped right there

Read Nozick on that.

File: 1454303820472.jpg (56KB, 768x612px)

56KB, 768x612px

>>2274516
>They are essentially the guardians and guaranteers of a countries sovereignty
this is what cuckolded militaries believe

>>2274516
Well if governed by the military you mean governed by a small junta of high ranking military officers I think we have enough examples to see why that is bad idea.

>>2274626
It doesn't have to be that way. The Athenians for example were a military democracy where the citizens were the army.

>>2274641
Military was a very different beast back then. Also I would argue having only people who have been trained for military service be eligible to vote is very different than the military running your government.

>>2274516
military governments in practice have almost always failed, mostly be devolving into corrupt regimes that divert all revenues into their the accounts of the top commanders and/or just go straight to the armed force, leaving civilian infrastructure in a state of decay and disrepair.

One of the main cornerstones of modern Western civilization is direct participation in the rule of law by civilians, to create a government that is representative of the people, and the military takes the role of a service to those civilians rather than a lordship over them.

tl;dr: Military regimes have almost never lasted more than a couple generations due to their misplaced priorities in state-building, whereas Civil Law has been a concept since the Roman Republic and is still the foundation for half of the world's governments 2500 years later.