>>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 con

>>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? 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).