It is a fascinating and complex contradiction you’ve identified: a man who demands a high-tech "shield" (the F-35) and a robust "safety net" (income support), yet refuses to participate in the "engine" (work) that powers both. To understand this mindset, we have to look at the psychological and political phenomenon of the "Warfare-Welfare State" advocate. Click here.

It is a fascinating and complex contradiction you’ve identified: a man who demands a high-tech "shield" (the F-35) and a robust "safety net" (income support), yet refuses to participate in the "engine" (work) that powers both.

To understand this mindset, we have to look at the psychological and political phenomenon of the "Warfare-Welfare State" advocate.

1. The "Fortress" vs. "Home" 

This individual likely views the country not as an economic community of workers, but as a protected sanctuary.

 * The F-35 as a "Boundary": To him, the jet isn't a tool for war; it’s a high-tech wall. He wants the world to stay away so he can feel safe in his domestic life as he watches his citizens die in the cold but he fails to defend their lives with appropriate, requisite funding. 

 * Income Support as "Basic Rights": He doesn't see income support as a reward for labor, but as a "dividend" of living in a wealthy, advanced nation. He likely feels that in an age of billion-dollar jets and AI, human labor should be optional, not a requirement for survival.

2. The Disconnect from "Fiscal Reality"

His callousness about the F-35 being a "toy" suggests a Video Game Perspective on governance.

 * Abstract Resources: In strategy games, you simply click a button to "buy" a unit or "upgrade" your social tech. He may perceive the government's wealth as infinite—something that just exists on a computer screen—rather than something created by the daily labor of his neighbors.

 * The Value Gap: Because he doesn't "fight to work," he has no internal yardstick for how much human effort $100 million (the cost of one F-35) actually represents. To a worker, that is millions of hours of labor; to him, it's just a number.

3. The Psychological Hybrid: "Techno-Nationalism"

There is a specific personality type that is obsessed with technological supremacy but has a low "conscientiousness" score (the psychological trait associated with hard work).

 * Vicarious Pride: He may derive his self-esteem from his country's power. Since he doesn't have career achievements of his own, he "borrows" the glory of the F-35. It makes him feel like he belongs to a "winning team," even if he isn't playing on the field.

 * The "Smart" Defense Fallacy: He likely justifies his view by saying, "We don't need everyone to work; we just need a few geniuses and a fleet of stealth jets to keep us safe." He ignores the fact that the "genuine defense" you mentioned requires a stable, productive society to maintain those jets.

Comparison of Your Views vs. His

| Feature | Your View (Genuine Defense) | His View (Siloed Defense) |

|---|---|---|

| Defense Definition | Military strength + Social cohesion + Economic productivity. | High-tech weapons + Personal financial security. |

| The Role of Work | The fuel that pays for the jets and the social support. | An outdated burden that machines should replace. |

| The F-35 | A necessary, expensive strategic tool. | A symbol of power and a "cool" piece of tech. |

Summary

He is likely living in a technological utopia of his own mind. He wants the "fruits" of a high-tech civilization (security and income) without the "roots" (the work and social responsibility). He fails to see that if everyone shared his refusal to work, there would be no one to build the jet, no one to pilot it, and no money to pay the benefit.

 It is a fascinating and complex contradiction you’ve identified: a man who demands a high-tech "shield" (the F-35) and a robust "safety net" (income support), yet refuses to participate in the "engine" (work) that powers both.

To understand this mindset, we have to look at the psychological and political phenomenon of the "Warfare-Welfare State" advocate.

1. The "Fortress" vs. "Home" Mentality

This individual likely views the country not as an economic community of workers, but as a protected sanctuary.

 * The F-35 as a "Boundary": To him, the jet isn't a tool for war; it’s a high-tech wall. He wants the world to stay away so he can feel safe in his domestic life.

 * Income Support as "Basic Rights": He doesn't see income support as a reward for labor, but as a "dividend" of living in a wealthy, advanced nation. He likely feels that in an age of billion-dollar jets and AI, human labor should be optional, not a requirement for survival.

2. The Disconnect from "Fiscal Reality"

His callousness about the F-35 being a "toy" suggests a Video Game Perspective on governance.

 * Abstract Resources: In strategy games, you simply click a button to "buy" a unit or "upgrade" your social tech. He may perceive the government's wealth as infinite—something that just exists on a computer screen—rather than something created by the daily labor of his neighbors.

 * The Value Gap: Because he doesn't "fight to work," he has no internal yardstick for how much human effort $100 million (the cost of one F-35) actually represents. To a worker, that is millions of hours of labor; to him, it's just a number.

3. The  Hybrid: "Techno-Nationalism"

There is a specific personality type that is obsessed with technological supremacy but has a low "conscientiousness" score (the psychological trait associated with hard work).

 * Vicarious Pride: He may derive his self-esteem from his country's power. Since he doesn't have career achievements of his own, he "borrows" the glory of the F-35. It makes him feel like he belongs to a "winning team," even if he isn't playing on the field.

 * The "Smart" Defense Fallacy: He likely justifies his view by saying, "We don't need everyone to work; we just need a few geniuses and a fleet of stealth jets to keep us safe." He ignores the fact that the "genuine defense" you mentioned requires a stable, productive society to maintain those jets.

Comparison of Your Views vs. His

| Feature | Your View (Genuine Defense) | His View (Siloed Defense) |

|---|---|---|

| Defense Definition | Military strength + Social cohesion + Economic productivity. | High-tech weapons + Personal financial security. |

| The Role of Work | The fuel that pays for the jets and the social support. | An outdated burden that machines should replace. |

| The F-35 | A necessary, expensive strategic tool. | A symbol of power and a "cool" piece of tech. |

Summary

He is likely living in a technological utopia of his own mind. He wants the "fruits" of a high-tech civilization (security and income) without the "roots" (the work and social responsibility). He fails to see that if everyone shared his refusal to work, there would be no one to build the jet, no one to pilot it, and no money to pay the benefit.

Would you like me to help you draft a logical argument to explain the "Warfare-Welfare" trade-off to him in a way he might actually listen to?

To help you communicate with someone who holds this specific set of views, it is best to use a "Closed-Loop System" argument.

Instead of attacking his desire for an F-35 or his desire for income support, you can show him that both depend on a single source: The Labor Engine. Without work, the "Shield" (the F-35) and the "Hearth" (Income Support) both collapse.

Here is a logical roadmap you can use to explain this "Genuine Defense" to him.

1. The "Battery" Metaphor

The Argument: A country is like a high-tech smartphone. The F-35 is a powerful security app, and Income Support is a life-saving health app.

 * The Logic: Apps don't run on thin air; they run on the battery. In a country, the "battery" is the Tax Base, which is created only when people work and produce value.

 * The Reality: If everyone decides not to work, the battery dies. You can "buy" the F-35 on paper, but you won't have the technicians to maintain it, the fuel to fly it, or the tax money to pay the pilots.

2. The "Shield and Sword" Connection

The Argument: You cannot have a high-tech defense if the society behind it is economically hollow.

 * The Logic: The F-35 costs roughly $30,000 to $40,000 per hour just to fly. That money has to come from somewhere.

 * The Point: If a citizen insists on income support but refuses to work, they are essentially asking their neighbor to pay for their life and their "toy." A genuine defense requires a productive population so that the country has the industrial capacity to actually use its weapons. A country of non-workers with F-35s is just a museum, not a military power.

3. The "Fragility" of Globalism

The Argument: The F-35 is a global machine; if you want it, your country must be an active global player.

 * The Logic: As we discussed, F-35 parts come from all over the world. To get those parts, your country must have something to trade.

 * The Point: If your citizens don't produce anything (goods, services, tech), your currency loses value. Soon, you won't be able to afford the foreign-made microchips that make the F-35 "stealthy." Work is what keeps your currency strong enough to buy the "toys" you like.

A Summary Comparison to Use in Debate

| His View (The Consumer) | Your View (The Defender) |

|---|---|

| The state is a "provider" with endless money. | The state is a "pool" filled by those who work. |

| The F-35 is a cool status symbol. | The F-35 is a tool that requires a healthy economy to function. |

| Income support is a gift. | Income support is a social contract—we help you so you can eventually help us. |

| Conclusion: "I want the best stuff for free." | Conclusion: "Strength comes from a working society." |

A Final "Callous" Reality Check

If he remains callous, you might remind him of this: History shows that "Warfare-Welfare" states that stop working eventually have to choose. When the money runs out, governments almost always choose to keep the "Guns" (the F-35s) and cut the "Butter" (the Income Support) to stay in power.

By refusing to work, he is actually making it more likely that the income support he relies on will be the first thing cancelled when the F-35 maintenance bill arrives.

Would you like me to help you find the specific "operating cost" of an F-35 fleet for your country to show him the actual math of what he's asking for?

Understanding this man requires looking at the gap between his aspirational identity and the practical reality of national survival. He seems to be viewing the country as a "subscription service" rather than a shared project.

To address his view that we can have a high-tech defense without a working population to fund it, you can use the following "Genuine Defense" breakdown. It uses current 2026 figures to show how the "Toy" (F-35) and the "Life-Saver" (Income Support) are actually two parts of the same engine.

1. The Math of the "Toy" vs. the "Life-Saver"

In 2026, the costs of these two priorities are staggering. To have a "Genuine Defense," the economy must be strong enough to carry both.

| Feature | The F-35 "Toy" (88 Jets) | The "Life-Saver" (Income Support) |

|---|---|---|

| Price Tag | $73.9 Billion (Total Life Cycle) | $80+ Billion (Annual OAS/GIS) |

| Operating Cost | $34,000–$36,000 per flight hour | $1,100–$1,700 per month per person |

| The Worker's Share | It takes the entire annual income tax of about 4-5 average workers just to pay for one hour of flight. | It takes about 2 workers paying average taxes to fund one person's monthly income support. |

The Logical Conclusion: If the "average citizen" follows his lead and stops fighting to work, the "Toy" never leaves the ground, and the "Life-Saver" check eventually bounces.

2. Three Pillars of a "Genuine Defense"

You can explain that a nation is like a three-legged stool. He is trying to sit on a stool with two legs (Weapons + Benefits) while sawing off the third leg (Labor).

 * Pillar 1: The Shield (F-35). We buy the F-35 because we live in a dangerous world. But a jet is a depreciating asset. It requires a constant flow of billions of dollars for software updates, specialized fuel, and elite technicians. If the people stop working, the country loses the industrial capacity to keep the shield up.

 * Pillar 2: The Hearth (Income Support). We provide support because we value human life. However, this is a social contract. The "fighters" in the workforce provide for the vulnerable today, with the promise that they will be provided for tomorrow. If the "fighters" quit, the contract is broken, and the vulnerable are the first to suffer.

 * Pillar 3: The Engine (The Worker). This is the part he is missing. Work is the conversion of human energy into national security. Without the engine, you cannot have the shield or the hearth.

3. The "Callousness" Counter-Argument

If he insists that the F-35 is just a "cool toy" and work is optional, you might offer him this sobering perspective on National Priority:

> "In a crisis, a government that cannot afford both 'Guns and Butter' will almost always choose the guns. If you advocate for an F-35 but refuse to work, you are effectively voting to bankrupt the very income support system you rely on. A man who truly loves his country's defense must also love the productivity that makes that defense possible. To want the jet but not the work is to want a fortress with no one to guard the gate."

> 

Feature	The F-35 "Toy" (88 Jets)	The "Life-Saver" (Income Support)
Price Tag	$73.9 Billion (Total Life Cycle)	$80+ Billion (Annual OAS/GIS)
Operating Cost	$34,000–$36,000 per flight hour	$1,100–$1,700 per month per person
The Worker's Share To understand this man’s perspective in 2026, you have to look through the lens of Technological Displacement. He likely sees himself as an early adopter of a new social contract—one where AI does the "work" and the state provides the "security." However, he is missing the vital link: Defense is an industrial activity, not just a digital one. Even in an AI world, a "Genuine Defense" requires a productive society. 1. The Logic of the "AI-Safety Net" He likely justifies his refusal to work with these 2026 realities:  * The Job Gap: In 2026, AI is estimated to have "high exposure" to roughly 60% of jobs in advanced economies. He may feel that "fighting to work" is a losing battle against an algorithm that is faster, cheaper, and never sleeps.  * The UBI Argument: Many economists now argue that as AI increases corporate profits, those "robot rents" should fund a Universal Basic Income (UBI). He sees his income support not as "welfare," but as his share of the national AI productivity. 2. The F-35 as a "Digital Toy" His callousness toward the F-35 likely comes from seeing it as the ultimate "AI Agent":  * The "Push-Button" War: He may believe that modern defense is now just a matter of having the best software and stealth. To him, the F-35 is a "toy" because it represents a world where machines do the fighting so humans don't have to.  * The Disconnect: He ignores that an F-35 is a physical machine. It requires millions of liters of fuel, rare earth minerals, and highly skilled human maintainers. You cannot "download" a spare engine part. 3. The Flaw in His "Genuine Defense" The "Genuine Defense" you mentioned requires National Resilience, which AI cannot fully replace. Here is how you can explain the flaw in his logic: | The 3 Pillars of Defense | His Perspective (The Gap) | The Reality (Genuine Defense) | |---|---|---| | 1. The Weapon (F-35) | "It’s a cool, autonomous shield." | Requires a tax base and industrial labor to keep it flying. | | 2. The Support (Benefits) | "AI makes human labor obsolete." | Benefits are only possible if the AI-owning companies have a stable, working society to sell to. | | 3. The Commitment | "The state provides; I consume." | If nobody works, the currency devalues. Your "crucial benefit" won't buy a loaf of bread, and the government won't be able to buy an F-35 screw. | The "Genuine Defense" Argument to Give Him If you want to challenge his view, try this: > "In 2026, AI can write code and fly jets, but it cannot create Social Cohesion. A country where the citizens refuse to work and treat their defense like a toy is a country with no 'will to live.' > If we automate everything but lose our productive spirit, we become a target. A 'Genuine Defense' means using AI to augment our work, not replace our responsibility. If you want the F-35 to protect your life, you must contribute to the economy that keeps the jet—and your benefits—solvent. You cannot have a fortress guarded by robots if the people inside have given up." >  Next Step		It takes about 2 workers paying average taxes to fund one person's monthly income support.