Some people believe those under 21 serving in the military should be allowed to drink alcohol even if non-military citizens are not. The crux of the argument is, “if I am old enough to die for my country, I am old enough to drink.” Still, America’s Founding Fathers clearly believed the military, as an extension of the government, should serve the people rather than the other way around, so, one could argue, military members should be held, not only to the same standards as non-military citizens, but to an even higher standard. ·  For the assignment this week, write a 500-750 word paper arguing whether military personnel should or should not receive rights and/or liberties not afforded to non-military citizens. In the paper, include the opposing position along with your rebuttal (of that opposing position). ·  For instance, if you wrote a paper arguing that military personnel should receive rights not afforded to non-military citizens (and why), then the rebuttal would be that military personnel should not receive rights not afforded to non-military citizens (and why). · : A rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party

Title: Should Military Personnel Receive Rights and Liberties not Afforded to Non-Military Citizens?

Introduction:
The question of whether military personnel should be granted additional rights and liberties not provided to non-military citizens is a complex and controversial issue. On one hand, proponents argue that these brave individuals put their lives on the line to protect the nation and should therefore enjoy certain privileges. On the other hand, detractors contend that all citizens should be treated equally under the law, regardless of their military service. This paper aims to provide an analysis of both perspectives and present a nuanced argument.

Supporting Argument: Military Personnel Should Receive Additional Rights

Proponents of granting military personnel additional rights argue that their service to the nation warrants special considerations. These individuals voluntarily join the armed forces, accept rigorous training, and potentially sacrifice their lives in defense of their country. As a result of their dedication, it is argued that they should be rewarded with additional liberties.

Firstly, military personnel are often subjected to dangerous and high-stress situations that most civilians will never experience. In recognition of the unique challenges they face, granting certain exemptions, such as the right to consume alcohol under the age of 21, can provide a level of respite and stress relief. This can contribute to their overall psychological well-being, which is crucial for the maintenance of a capable and effective military force.

Secondly, military service often demands significant personal sacrifices, including extended separations from family and loved ones. This sacrifice, combined with the potential for physical and mental harm, may warrant additional benefits. Granting military personnel certain rights or privileges can act as a form of compensation for the burdens they bear in service to their country.

Furthermore, providing specialized rights to military personnel can serve as an incentive for recruitment and retention. By offering these distinct benefits, the military can attract qualified individuals who might otherwise choose alternative career paths. This can ensure a highly skilled and dedicated force, supporting the overall national security objectives.

Rebuttal: Military Personnel Should Not Receive Additional Rights

Detractors argue that granting additional rights and privileges to military personnel violates the fundamental principle of equality and undermines the democratic ideals upon which the nation is built. All citizens, regardless of their occupation or profession, should be treated equally under the law.

One of the core principles of a democratic society is that military institutions should serve the people rather than the other way around. This concept is rooted in the belief that the government, including the armed forces, must be accountable to the citizenry. Granting special rights and privileges to military personnel would create a hierarchical system that could erode this foundational principle.

Additionally, critics argue that exempting military personnel from certain laws can lead to a culture of entitlement and impunity. Treating them differently from non-military citizens could foster a sense of superiority and lead to a lack of accountability for their actions. This could undermine the principles of justice and fairness for all.

Another concern is that granting military personnel additional rights may inadvertently create divisions between the military and civilian population. By privileging one group over another, it could lead to a perception of exceptionalism, potentially alienating non-military citizens and eroding public trust in the military.

Overall, while acknowledging the sacrifices and unique challenges of military service, it is essential to uphold the principle of equality and ensure the accountability of institutions. This can be achieved by treating military personnel and non-military citizens equally under the law.

In conclusion, the question of whether military personnel should receive rights and liberties not afforded to non-military citizens is a complex and contentious issue. While recognizing the sacrifices and unique circumstances of military service, it is crucial to uphold the principles of equality and accountability. Striking a balance between acknowledging the contributions of military personnel and maintaining the democratic ideals of the nation is paramount.

Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadline.


Click Here to Make an Order Click Here to Hire a Writer