Which is kind of terrifying for a country with democratic input. If people can't be trusted with their own money, why should they be trusted to decide who controls the American nuclear arsenal?
Ultimately, I'm not sure a free society, a welfare state, and universal suffrage can all co-exist in the long term.
I think any two could survive, but all three seem like a longshot.
I'm actually having trouble figuring out which two I'm rooting for.
In a democracy, the people (and their legitimately elected representatives) are also allowed to structure markets and decide on what business practices are and are not allowed
With this analogy, I think you inadvertently supported the opposite argument: the nuclear arsenal itself is not democratically controlled. Rather, we elect someone who controls it (with several layers of checks and balances).
Is it just the willingness for military officials to follow the order? I'm pretty sure the president doesn't have to consult with congress or the supreme court before doing this.