The Pros And Cons Of Military Protection

326 Words2 Pages
The most obvious form of protection is the physical sort. With a social contract, a person acknowledges that they are giving up “absolute freedom”, which is the basic, natural freedom-- the kind where humans are free to murder, to to lie, to cheat, as humans are surely capable of such things if there is no respect for government. In giving this up, they secure protection from a higher power such as the military. The police are there to protect citizens from attackers, while the military is there to protect from foreign affairs. However, that being said, people still want the ability to have their own political liberties. This protection does come at a cost-- many of these protections are funded with tax dollars, a situation that has been politically contested for centuries. Citizens want a strong military, but not one strong enough to overpower their own liberty.…show more content…
There is a grey area of exactly how far people wish for this protection to be stretched, one that doesn’t have a true right answer. One example of this situation is the size and funding of the military. After the war on terror began, politicians began lobbying to increase the size of the military in order to gain a stronger upper hand in the Middle East. Many people were incredibly in support of this idea-- they thought that, in order to succeed, they needed to be able to win those battles. However, certain politicians believed that this wasn’t America’s place to interfere and that the army should be smaller, and with it pulling out of the Middle East. They believe that this would save lives of the troops. Neither view is either right or wrong-- both have their merits-- but both have to do with the thought of freedom versus safety, and how much people are willing to get up to achieve
Open Document