The idea of civil disobedience is to make yourself more “free” by purposely disobeying the government, who Thoreau believes, “is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it,” (Thoreau, On the duty of civil disobedience 3). From this quote, we can see Thoreau believes by doing these acts of disobedience the individual will become one with itself, and be able to break free of society’s grip. However, Thoreau fails to grasp the benefits of being a part of a society, which include receiving aid from the government if you are struggling, having low cost healthcare, and being active with others. These things can be essential to life. As in a transcendental utopian society, there is no way to seek out medical help, as you are out by yourself, with whatever you need as a necessity.
For example the First World War. This war happened because people wanted more power and therefore it was partly caused by Nationalism. Conclusion: To conclude my findings, I think we can say the long-term effects of Nationalism are both negative and positive.
Having transgender soldiers makes the medical cost higher and hinders military effectiveness. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," says President Trump. Allowing transgender soldiers to serve is more money which the U.S. does not have time to focus on. "The cost would be between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually for transition-related costs. The group estimated there are between 1,320 and 6,630 active-duty transgender service people currently," according to a RAND analysis commissioned by the Department of Defense.
There were activists who were out to spread propaganda that went against the beliefs of the War Hawks. This came as a disadvantage to them. In one newspaper, an article listed reasons as to why the United States was not prepared for war. Foreign policy was also a reason that people were worried about declaring war on Britain. People also complained about countries such as Canada and France.
As said he favored flexible response but at the same time he used the military as well. He did this by bringing in troops and using our troops to fight in the war. Most american longed for change because they knew about all of the policies. Not always using armed forces in an time of crisis is right. Foreign policy is how we deal with other countries.
Rough Draft: Military Conscription in the United States Throughout the history of the United States, military drafts have failed to produce their desired effect. Mandatory military service inherently causes an increased military presence, especially within a country containing extensive involvement with foreign affairs. Controversy has historically surrounded military drafts in the United States as often, the wealthy have been successful in avoiding service. Because the issues surrounding a military draft outweigh the pros, the concept of military conscription has become unpopular and the United State 's military has proven itself effective with the current system based on voluntary service. Therefore, the United States should not adopt military conscription because not only would it provoke an increased number of military conflicts and inequality, but also would be unpopular and unnecessary.
Even as the war proceeded, he was reluctant to make the decision because he feared that it might bring about more chaos than the current state of the United States during the Civil War. In his paper, professor Krug wrote, “Lincoln issued the Proclamation primarily from military necessity and that he was influenced little, if at all, by considerations of justice, freedom and morality”. At this point of the war, it was clear that the Union needs more manpower and constituents’ support. Furthermore, a boost in morale among the African American population was abundant in the effort to fight against the Confederate which is the motivation for President Lincoln to produce the
Many Americans were ready for the war and learned some interesting tactics from fighting the French and Natives, such as guerilla warfare. The war also heavily exhausted the British of vital resources which would have made them unfit for another war so soon. Without the French and Indian War, there was no way the Americans could have succeeded against the British in the following
Throughout history, countries are inevitably pulled into conflicts that result in war. These conflicts usually occur because of interests in: economic gain, territorial gain, religion, and nationalism. America, like every country, needs a military to defend itself, especially when tensions arise in other parts of the world and when militia numbers start to decrease. This then allows the government to draft its population to serve in the military. People argue that young men and women’s bright lives are often cut short, and not allowed their Constitutional right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, but there are many benefits for the nation and the individual by serving one’s country.
At first, they will fight this with all they can, which means that they will not spend any money in such activities. The older generation still feels that the idea of international products is better than local ones, and those who have the financial capacity to travel abroad will do so, because it is a drastic change in the culture and would require extensive marketing to get the citizens to believe in local entertainment and domestic tourism. Then it will require citizens who are religiously conservative to be more accepting of the changes that are
When it comes to National Security and Defense the United States gets involved for gain however they state its due to necessity. This is the reason we are losing so many. Instead of fixing the issues that exist in the United States which is actually necessary, like fixing our corrupt government, we are fighting in other counties, with matters that do not concern us. There is a different to aid a country in need, and another to bully alongside an ally for future access and
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t
The people are giving up some of their right so the government will protect them. The first amendment is “freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition” The first amendment is similar to the social contract because in a way the government is promising to protect you in exchange for some of your rights.
The Anti-Federalists that opposed the constitution believed that the constitution would give too much power to the government. The Anti-Federalists argued that a powerful government would become tyrannical like the British monarchy that they worked so hard to escape from. This led them to create The Bill of Rights. Today’s government has similar problems. Nowadays some politicians believe that The Bill of Rights is a living document that can be changed or manipulated to “better fit” the era that we live in.
Without order or stability, people would kill each other. Another key factor in which Plato and Machiavelli seem to agree on is that by keeping the mass happy the government is safe. Essentially, if people have nothing to truly complain about, then the ruler will not be overthrown by the popular mass. Lastly, although these great philosophers wanted stability and freedom, they both acknowledge the reality that it is impossible to have both in