Why Political Obligation Can Not Be Grounded?

The federal and state governments provide the American citizens with all of the basic necessities within our communities and society that is taken for granted. Programs responsible for assistance in times of need, providing a quality standard of living, and maintaining the strongest military in the world costs incomprehensible amounts of money and could never exist without taxes from the American people. Taxes are payments made by individuals and businesses to support the government and its services. The constitution grants that congress “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the people”. Taxes paid by Americans redistribute

There are currently two prevalent narratives on the duties, the obligations, of a government, both of which have been used to justify government welfare. The first, and most vocal is that a government, in general and without exception, ought to protect its own citizens from any and all harms. The second popular narrative is where the government is strictly in existence to protect the rights (life, liberty, property, Bill of Rights, et cetera) of its citizens. First, it is first imperative to know that 14.5% of American families are below the poverty line and struggle to even place food on the table and are in a real danger of starving (Bread). Whether it is to protect its citizens from poverty or their lives from the effect of it, most would agree that the government has a moral obligation to act. Thus, it is reproachable for a government to take no action in protecting its citizens from from the

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

3. The author’s purpose is to discuss the percentage of American people that receive a benefit from the government and why the number is on the

Socrates argues in the Crito that he shouldn't escape his death sentence because it isn't just. Crito is distressed by Socrates reasoning and wishes to convince him to escape since Crito and friends can provide the ransom the warden demands. If not for himself, Socrates should escape for the sake of his friends, sons, and those who benefit from his teaching. Socrates and Crito's argument proceeds from this point.

When Socrates rejects the plan of Crito helping him escape jail even with a successful plan where he would live a pleasant life in exile. Crito saw no wrong in helping Socrates escape from jail because Socrates is a victim of unjust laws. Socrates then creates a dialogue for Crito between himself and the laws of Athens that gives a view on how discipline Socrates is to the Athens laws even with being innocent and sentenced to death Socrates is still wanting to be obedient to the Athens laws. Socrates then argues the fact he is a citizen of the state “ having been born, nourished, and educated within it borders, he is a child of the state and that he owes an obligation”. Socrates speaks on the laws of the Athens and explained to Crito why it

In ancient Greece one topic that was debated over and over was the difference between the individual and the state. In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Crito by Plato, Socrates is sentenced to death and knows that his trial is unjust, but knows not to escape. Since he believes in his state, he decides to let fate take its course. It brings up the argument that for an individual to believe in their state, they must believe that their state is superior to one’s life and well-being. Through his words and actions, he is able to show it.

Since a government is a restrictive system and humans are human, it is only natural that such a system is seen as resentful; however, in order for humanity to thrive, government is essential. In this excerpt from Common Sense, “On the Origin and Design of Government in General,” Thomas Paine, the author, explains why government is a “necessary evil.”

Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State and Utopia develops his central idea called the ‘entitlement theory.’ This concept states that redistribution of goods is only considered justified if it has the consent of the owner of the holdings. He mentions here that the only State that is justified in carrying out any duties is the ‘minimal state.’ The minimal State is one that is only limited to the enforcement of of contracts and protection of individuals, etc. Any more intervention from the State, according to Nozick, is a violation of right against the people. The purpose of this essay is to examine Nozick’s argument against redistributive taxation to prove that eliminating taxation means getting rid of public education. I will argue that the right of education is embedded as one of the services that is essential to the development of society and that without the funding for it, it will cease to exist. Using Charles Taylor’s argument, that choices are necessary for autonomy, I show how education gives rise to better autonomy for in the individual. Thus, allowing for the growth and development of the community.

As citizens of a strong state it is our duty to think about the common good of

Socrates’ adherence to the law causes him to refuse Crito’s offer to help him out of prison. As a citizen of Athens, the duty to oblige with the contractual agreement is a must. Contractual relationship has been established between Socrates and the state as he has benefited all the goods such as education and protection of the laws however when failure to comply, consequences such as execution must be faced. For Socrates, escaping is an unjust act and for which if he did act upon it, would lead to more consequences. For instance, Crito would be involved in an unjust act and in acceptance to his punishment, he made sure to explain why he must remain in prison. One argument made is that if he did escape then the system would be destroyed. A destroyed

For instance, our National Defense and National Parks are two good examples of non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods and services. Therefore, the government is in a position to ensure that every citizen reaps the benefits, preventing the deprivation of use due to the inability to pay and other discriminatory factors in our society. Nevertheless, the true reality is that certain goods or services value is greater than one person can afford; therefore, our collective tax payments allow the government to pay these goods and services on our behalf, not burdening one individual citizen to pay the full amount. We must keep in mind that non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods and services are essential in building strong, healthy communities while strengthening our economic survival. Although it is important for the state government to provide non-rivalrous and non-excludable goods and services that educate our children, repair roads and bridges, provide healthcare, and serve and protect our communities, the inequality of the distribution demeans and oppresses the citizens residing in disadvantaged communities. For instance, although disadvantaged families receive these goods and services, the level of quality are not equal to the middle class or wealthier

Ultimately, deciding “which citizens are deserving of government resources” and this point of view works to “construct target populations that can be positively construed as “deserving” or negatively construed as “undeserving”” (Wilkins and Jeffrey 327). The results are a sense of entitlement and dependency. The “good guy” and “bad guy” stance is taken if one is not willing to allow the people being denied their rights the same liberties that one has. In The Defense of Injustice, Cicero’s point is proven that “The justice into which we are inquiring is not just something that naturally exists, but a quality that is created by those who are occupied in government. It cannot be merely natural, because if it was, justice and injustice would be the same thing for all human beings, like heat and cold, or bitter and sweet”. Social justice is not to point the finger or blame anyone, it is to promote social equality. West states, “The roots of democracy are fundamentally grounded in mutual respect, personal responsibility, and social accountability. Yet democracy is also about giving each person a dignified voice in the decision-making processes in those institutions that guide and regulate their lives.” (Moral Obligations). If people are being treated unfairly and demand changes and the majority do not want to comply, that

Citizens of the United States are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness by the Constitution, not the right to attain it. Many proponents of Institutionalized National Service (henceforth INS) confuse this point. If the government of this country guaranteed the happiness of each of its individual citizens, it might make sense to force them to help one another as much as possible. Fortunately, this is not the case.

Another concern expressed by Keong (2007) is the idea that positive liberty means we expect the state to hand us certain things on a silver platter. Positive liberty has been used as a platform to push through ideas such as the principle that everyone is entitled to a minimum income or standard of living, though not everyone is comfortable with the “moral hazard this might evoke” (Keong, 2007). Key questions asked with this in mind include; ‘if you are guaranteed something, will you be willing to contribute back to society for it? Or, will you sit around and collect your entitlements? (Keong, 2007; Haworth, 1991).