A government has a responsibility to its citizen to ensure their safety. Therefore, some people think that the government should increase spending on defence but spend less on social benefits. To what extent do you agree?

The safety of lives and properties is the responsibility of the political leaders.

Hence

, some individuals opine that they should improve the allocation for defence and reduce that for social benefits. I totally agree with

this

notion because of the several advantages it offers. To start with, improved

security

will encourage investments. When a

state

is safe, people would want to establish businesses.

As a result

of

this

, the

economy

of the

state

will improve and there will be more funds to cater for other aspects of the

state

, like health, education and so on, including social benefits.

Additionally

, citizens would not think of relocating because they would be gainfully employed. Japan,

for example

, has reported a great rise in the

economy

after fortifying their defence system.

Therefore

, when the

security

of a place is intensified by the government, the

economy

blossoms. Another point to consider is that, the crime rate will drop drastically. Since the criminals are that they could be apprehended during operations, they tend to shy away from crime and engage in some dignified jobs.

Consequently

, the rate of robbery, kidnapping and other grievous offences will be minimized to the nearest minimum.

For instance

, my

state

has been experiencing tranquility since the

security

was improved, when the Governor through the Commissioner of defence, provided more automobiles and defensive gadgets to M the police.

Hence

, when more money is expended on

security

, the criminals will turn a new leaf. In conclusion, I completely agree with the view that government should expend more on

security

because

this

will in turn improve the

economy

of the

state

and reduce crime in the vicinity.