Agree or disagree: if you're going to argue that the government should have less power you shouldn't argue for an overpowered military?

Honestly, I've seen so many people argue that the government shouldn't be involved in things like health care, social security and higher education because that would make the government too "powerful" and lead to oppression. But many of the people who feel that way would also argue against any cuts in military spending.


The US has 5% of the world's population, 16% of its wealth but 40% of the planets military spending. Some will say that the US needs to defend itself but it's military budget is way too disproportionately high to be justified by the need for self-defense. These people will talk about the dangers of an oppressive government but virtually unconditionally support the military and police. NEWS FLASH: Medicine and social security are lousy methods of oppression but military and police are quite potent in the wrong hands.

  • Agree
    Vote A
  • Disagree
    Vote B
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Girl

  • THe argument is for less government involvment in citizens lives. The military is an extension of protection of those rights and are prevented by law from acting within the country or against citizens. That beign said, i think it's fair to question the balance of military spending vs spending for social support.

    • Perfect answer.

    • Show All
    • @RegularTK421 I said it wasn't something to be taken easily, i didn't say it was something that should never happen.

    • @Izumiblu I understand, sorry the comments didn't update while I was posting. I meant to post my 3 comments in order, I didn't see all of the responses at first. I agree with you anyway.

Most Helpful Guy

  • The military is not involved in citizens' lives directly. It protects the rights of those citizens and there are laws against the military bring directly involved in their lives. No price is too large when national security is at stake. Also, the common argument is against increased oversight, not power.

    • The argument very often is against power, not just oversight, for example on a national database of gun owners. Historically powerful militaries have often simply seized power, flaunting any laws against that happening, also a larger military requires higher taxes so by definition it reduces economic freedom.

    • Show All
    • We might someday fall to tyranny, but you and I will certainly not be around to see that. That's just how it is, the laws won't be overturned.

    • "We might someday fall to tyranny, but you and I will certainly not be around to see that. " a lot can happen in 60 years.

Have an opinion?


Send It!

What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!

What Guys Said 4

  • Of course we spend more on military forces than any other country: we are the prime target for communists, radical Islamists, and all of the other insane despots of the world. National defense is a job which is inherently incumbent upon a national government. That does not mean that we want the government interfering in our individual lives. There is no logical inconsistency in these two positions.

  • The US military budget is definitely overbloated, but the upcoming moron in chief wants to expand it.

  • I don't want Obamacare or socialized medicine because that takes away my choices as a consumer. However, we need a strong military to protect us so that we can have freedom, including economic freedom! I would rather the US have the strongest military in the world!

  • They argue for less government oversight, not less government power.

    • Well a powerful military does lead to more oversight...

      ... just not over US citizens.

    • No necessarily. (though it seems to be the case in USA) You can buy a very powerful shotgun and advertise it to your neighborhood in hopes that you'll never have to use it.