though I am a usaf officer, the rigor of obedience is not
the primary value which people envision from outside
the service. . intelligent achievement of the mission is first,
of course. . blind obedience is not a value;;; yes. -- j
.

Freedom, individual liberty, does require defense and sometimes by violence to stop those that initiate force against. When the tanks roll there is not time and space for a philosophical debate.

The right to your life and to live it as you see fit respecting the right of others to do likewise is key. The right to life implies the right to defend it. There is no debate on this that is rational.

It neither precludes no requires it. That is the point. The "discipline" it teaches is largely following orders without question. This is not a net good.

None, per se. Fighting in a war is only needed in a just and necessary war. Not something "owed" to others but owed to oneself for selfish reasons when values are threatened enough. Upholding ideas and ideals is important. Patrotism to a mere country regardless of whether it adheres to or respects those ideals is pointless. One owes nothing for merely being born in a certain nation.

yes, they go batty and we get bats!!!

or ... they get bats in the belfry and we get bats in the hand. -- j
.

Thank You, Mike, for citing this quotation. . I personally think
that -- as individuals have fists -- the "right" or privilege to
go somewhere armed is a natural right. . it is a symptom of
oppressive government when permission is "required."
I severely hope that we will never have to take up arms
against our government, but it would only be natural
to do so if necessary. . the founders built that into our heritage. -- j
.

Also, now, re-reading your post, I stopped at the word "should": "... the philosophy of Objectivism should not..." You seem not to understand that Objectivism is a consistent philosophy of reason and reality, not some piecemeal mishmash of intentions. In her address to West Point, Rand outlined some of the reasons why a rational person acting in their self-interest could choose military service or even a military career. Her statements were "is" not "should" -- Objectivism is this.

Check your premises, JR2. As a philosophy, Objectivism has no need for violent defense. Such action is anathema to the very principles of reason and reality. If what you are saying is that we need to arm ourselves to fight the government, then you are even more amiss. Nothing in Objectivism suggests that. In fact, Rand spoke against such notions.

Q: What is your opinion of gun control laws?
A: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]
From Ayn Rand Answers: the Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew © 2005 by The Estate of Ayn Rand.

If you want to glean through VOS, CUI, and PWNI, I think that you can find enough quotes to show that it is rational to be patriotic about a (mostly) free nation, but not rational to be patriotic about a (mostly) slave nation. So, as an American, you might be internally conflicted about where on the spectrum our nation now lies, but if you were Chinese, there would be no question.

More deeply, "patriotism" takes many expressions. Resisting the encroachment of an unjust government is patriotic. I had to learn that lesson from one of my progressive college professors who said that National Treasure was one of her favorite movies. I mean, I accepted as given that we take that view. I was surprised to meet a progressive who resisted the government: I'd forgotten...

Consider the range of protective forces in defense of rights. You could join the army, become a police officer, or a sheriff's deputy, or go into private security. They each have their pros and cons.

I mention those because no one argues that becoming a teacher is patriotic, though perhaps it is. Indeed, if we had to have this institution but not that, I would pick libraries over schools - and certainly no one becomes a librarian out of patriotism. (LIbrary of Congress, perhaps?) Maybe patriotism is just paying your taxes while advocating for the abolition of taxes.

IMO, the philosophy of Objectivism should not preclude military service. Military training, of whatever source, provides training in self-sufficiency and discipline. Provided the subject serviceperson has a background in critical thinking and observation, this increases the probability they will be more successful. This does not mean someone without that background will not succeed.

Also, it may be Objectivism may have to be defended with violence to survive and it is better to know how to do it in the beginning than have to have a very steep learning curve which may not have time to reach its apex. It also prepares one for the use of, and the result of, such violence. I must be prepared to give my service, up to and possibly including my life for its survival. It may not be enlightened self-interest but it's much to be preferred over the alternative, for there will possibly be no place to run when TSHTF.