Someone coming from Norway is familiar with other ways a government can fund itself having one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.
Some of the more obvious ones are relying on natural resource revenues, consumption and value-added taxes (VAT), corporate taxes, fees for services, taxing land, fines, or heavy customs duties.
Some of the more non-traditional are state owned companies, taxing pollution, lotteries, etc.
The whole philosophy that governments needs to tax citizens is honestly questionable.
As far as your conceptual example, no. The government does not have a duty to defend you at least in the US.
“DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales established that the government has a general duty to protect the public at large, but no legal mandate to protect any specific, individual citizen from violence.”
I would generally agree with you premise around everyone having an equal right to protection and in turn a obligation to defend but only in a perfect world where wars are not fought to enrich the military industrial complex.
Modern warfare is unnecessary and driven by profit and propaganda. In this respect our rights have been usurped by corporations and politicians who make money from killing people.
Someone coming from Norway is familiar with other ways a government can fund itself having one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.
Some of the more obvious ones are relying on natural resource revenues, consumption and value-added taxes (VAT), corporate taxes, fees for services, taxing land, fines, or heavy customs duties.
Some of the more non-traditional are state owned companies, taxing pollution, lotteries, etc.
The whole philosophy that governments needs to tax citizens is honestly questionable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
As far as your conceptual example, no. The government does not have a duty to defend you at least in the US.
“DeShaney v. Winnebago County and Castle Rock v. Gonzales established that the government has a general duty to protect the public at large, but no legal mandate to protect any specific, individual citizen from violence.”
I would generally agree with you premise around everyone having an equal right to protection and in turn a obligation to defend but only in a perfect world where wars are not fought to enrich the military industrial complex.
Modern warfare is unnecessary and driven by profit and propaganda. In this respect our rights have been usurped by corporations and politicians who make money from killing people.