Military force is justified to protect economic dependencies.

Clarifications So your definitions are pretty much useless until you link them to some sort of argument or "impact". So I don't have to attack all of them until they have a reason. 3. Observations Here you claim that I can not use past evidence because that violates "is". When making a decision, we think about past experiences. Such as: Is it ok for me to steal a cookie Last time I stole a cookie I was in trouble thereafter It is not ok for me to steal a cookie It is impossible for man to make a decision using "is" without looking at was it has been or what was before. If anything, the only thing that "is" limits is the future. Since the past is needed in creating the present, the future becomes a non-issue. Because of this, neither of us can create a hypothetical situation in the future were economy is NOT needed to survive….sorry, I know I just destroyed your like hidden argument for later but oh well  4. Arguments I don't believe my first argument with the use of economy is irrelevant. I claim that an economy is needed. Thus, a location of economic investment that a country can not live without would be the same as the sense of my first argument. Now you claim that Earth is a nation, and Earth does not economically invest in other nations, so an economy is not a necessity of life. However, I claim that we are 1. talking about a "country" in my AIM defintion that you used. Earth is not a country. A nation maybe, a society maybe, but not a classified country. 2. We are debating if military force is necessary to protect a location that is needed to survive. If Earth is a country, as you say, and Earth does not invest in any economy and does not have any places that we have described to protect, it does not apply to this resolution. Saying they have nothing to protect does not prove that they are not justified in protecting a location if they did have said location to protect. [[Contention 2]] [SPA] I believe I do not have to add anything. A government has a duty to protect the people. If the person does not want to be protected, they can leave. What you are trying to say is that fulfilling an obligation is bad. However, an obligation is called an OBLIGATION because there is an OBLIGATION or a need to do so. I believe an alive citizenry is more important that a spoiled and greedy one. [SPB] See, I am not stating that a high, prosperous economy is good. I am asking if it is justified to use military force to protect a place that is NECESSARY for ANY ECONOMY. A lot of money may be evil. But some money is needed. If we have no money, we have no food, no energy, no home, no infrastructure, no nothing. Ok, you must be desperate to use my own views against me. First, I can always play the devil's advocate for the sake of debate. Second, I can always compromise some of my personal believes for others I deem more important. Example, I might allow social security to allow something I like such as a sales tax. And finally, I am not supporting national health etc etc. I am supporting a NECESSITY of life. Where is the link between enough money to survive and enough money to waste on social aid? [SPC] Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was not calling for the abolition of any government. He was calling for the abolition of a totalitarian state that is oppressive. If you were to use a philosopher against society, at least use Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self Reliance". But if you do use that I already have an argument against it. Just telling you to look into it for future reference. So you have not once debated the justification of using military force to protect a location that is needed for economic survival which in turn is needed for survival period.