Should There Be A Free-Rider's Arguments Of National Defence?

As citizens of the United States of America we must pay taxes to the government. The government takes these taxes and distributes them among different areas to fund each are; one of the highest percentages of spending goes to defense. The whopping amount of around 610 billion dollars makes the United States’ military the largest in the world, so large that its funding out-weighs the next seven highest spending countries. The problem with this is that the military does not really solve the large amount of very important domestic affairs; in fact we barely see the fruits of it. There are many reasons why we should cut down on the percentage spent on defense and focus more on other areas.

Being two of the most respected and qualified academicians on public policy, Charles Murray, and Robert B. Reich have never been short of making controversial and contradicting statements which arguably serves only their interest of getting an audience. Public policy as it is has been subjected to lots of changes throughout the history leading to different reactions and opinions from different individuals. “What it means to be a Libertarian-A Personal Interpretation” written by Charles Murray, explicitly describes how the society should view the government by claiming it can help in achieving overall happiness and allowing members of the society to have a right to individual freedom when coping with the changes brought by public policy. On the other hand, Robert B. Reich’s “Aftershock the next Economy and America’s Future” talks about overcoming our problems by keeping a tier of classes. This paper discusses the contradicting views of these two writers.

Sure, the government makes us do all sorts of things: serve on juries, pay taxes, have a driver?s license. When the government requires possession of a driver?s license it is for our own security, to make sure that only those who are capable to drive are on the road. When we are being asked to serve on jury, it is for our interest as well. As a society, we get to take a part in a legal decision and make sure that justice is done in our country. Even the requirement to pay taxes eventually is for our interest. The tax money helps the government to do things for us as a society, such as financing culture events, helping elders and people in need. However, asking us to risk our lives for something that not all citizens believe worth fighting for is not in our interest. People should not be forced to enlist in the army, which is one reason why we should not reinstate the military draft. In other words, since we live in a country based on freedom, the government should not take away our right to decide if we want to fight or not. We should not be forced to fight a war. We should not be forced into the meat grinder and possibly killed

It is a well-known fact that the government makes laws that benefit it, and sometimes to the detriment of the average citizen. Take, for example, the tax laws. You would be hard pressed to find a taxpayer who believes that paying taxes is fair. In fact most people would complain that they pay taxes all year by having an amount held out from their check, only to owe additional monies every April 15. This form of governmental taking is probably the most popular, but there are other actions that result in a private citizen losing their property to a governmental agency. However not every instance of a taking leaves the average citizen without a remedy, and in some instances not every instance of taken results in the person having less than when

Imagine one day after a long day off work in the fields, you go to your local pub or watering hole and you ask for your favorite brand of whiskey on the rocks. Then bam, there’s a tax on it. Not much, but not only do you have not just pay the 2 cents for your whiskey but you’re paying an extra penny for your favorite drink to the government. You thought your Government was getting rid of taxes forever but no, you have to pay for the cost of your freedom, because freedom is never free.

For centuries Universities have been a place to freely voice your opinion and debate with others. These institutions have been relatively safe harbors for debating social issues and exercising the individual's civil rights. However, current students seem to be the exact opposite, and the constitutional principle of free speech seems under siege. “Colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from strong historical support for free speech, including the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus” (Eliott)

Based on the information in the article, and what I know about the Patriot Act. I believe my rights have been imposed upon by the FBI, but I also believe they are trying to protect the Amercian citizens. The Patriot Act, which is an act of Congress, was signed into law by President George W. Bush this law was intended to halt terrorism and preserve life and liberty. This act was passed after the 9/11 incident. As with any bills or laws passed there are some glitches. Many Americans citizens and critics argue that the patriot act was passed before being introduced to the people. Most provisions of this act are considered invalid or unenforceable by its terms. Some optimist in major cities and communities are criticizing the patriot act as an

Constitutionally, the government has the right to tax its citizens. The idea of the states working together to defend against enemies and for the general welfare of the

The paradox of domestic commitment and domestic mobilization require the willingness of the domestic population to continue in adhering to paying the price of war. The idea mainly focuses on the idea of pure coercion, in which pure coercion or commitment is forced through state evidence. Simply put, domestic commitment calls for the domestic population to contribute to goals pertaining to the nation, but the system also punishes those who are unwilling to contribute domestically in terms of either financial, social, or political means. There is some degree of truth to this theory however. For example, if one evades a mandatory military service or paying their income tax, then ethically it is right for the government to track down

When a citizen’s basic needs and services are not met, discourse and destructive activities threaten the human community. A polity supporting the privatization of our commons and a Military Industrial Complex can prioritize budgets and tax policy that contradicts community support. We need to develop government budget priorities and tax policies that support the community and civil society. Moreover, the proliferation of weapons and the support of privatization can look like answers to job creation and economic security, they are actually perpetuating strife and inequality among our human community. The profit made at the expense of the community commons should be returned to support the community commons, not private elites.

Taxes have always been a contentious issue of debate in the United States; furthermore it is exacerbated by the specific philosophy of individuals, states, and regions. Too be clearer, nobody enjoys paying taxes, however it is the cost we pay for having civilization. Nevertheless, selfishness creeps in to many individuals who feel no particular benefit. Taxes have a real way of polarizing many people from different socio-economic backgrounds, because a tax is inexorably linked to a person’s belief-system. For instance, in the context of social welfare policy liberals are inclined to feel that the tax-burden should be heaped on individuals who have benefited the most from “the system”. On the other hand, we have conservatives who feel they did not receive any support, and all that is necessary is hard work and perseverance to succeed. I am not suggesting either one is correct; it is only a simple illustration to show the relation between pocketbook and personal belief. I hope studying the tax structures of New Jersey and Alabama will give me insight they both reconcile their political beliefs with their individual tax structures.

Police are here to protect us from crimes, but what if they can’t reach us in time? Many people want guns to be taken away because they don’t know the proper handling, and one of the few things they know for certain is that guns hurt people. It is understandable that they should fear the danger of guns, but that doesn’t mean that we should render ourselves undefended from threats, because others don’t know proper safety etiquette. Although many believe guns cause problems, guns prevent many horrible crimes from happening.

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” Are you ready to defend against the government? A lot of people don’t like Donald Trump, they fight against the government to try and stop some of the things he is doing a lot of these people love their country and want something better for the government. Presidents are elected every four years. The American people are here to stay. My hope for the future is that every citizen in the United States uses their rights set out in the constitution to ensure a bright future.

The purpose of this report is to determine if the government is acting fairly in its taxation of the American population, and to point out the waste in government spending. In an article published November 1995, an unknown author explained the need for government "revenue" by defending what the revenue supplies for the people. In America we live within a free enterprise society. A free enterprise system is based on the idea of competition is good and that only the most efficient businesses will survive. The free enterprise system works with the idea that the consumer is somewhat knowledgeable about the products they buy. However, in today's modern world the consumer cannot be always be expected to make an informed decision about something. This is where federal laws are put in place to protect the interest of the public. Examples of such laws are regulations covering quality and safety of home

Private businesses could not sell national defense to citizens and continue to stay in business, therefore is considered to be a public good. Selling defense services to those who are willing to pay for it and protecting them and not protecting those who refuse to contribute paying, could not be possible by any means. These individuals are considered as "free riders," which will not generally pay for something they can get free. That is the foremost reason national defense must be administered by the government and paid for through taxes.