One of the highly controversial issues today relates to whether the state should be responsible for people’s well-being and education or not. In this essay, the idea of the first group, which aims to achieve more success for each society, and the second perspective, emphasizing the inevitable consequences for the community, will be discussed.
Given the fact that the government is the largest investor in any society, advocates argue that the government should invest in education and medical care. Therefore, this investment not only promotes physical and mental health within society but also reduces illiteracy rates. For example, Japan’s government’s focus on literacy and healthcare has led to educational and economic advancements in the country. Simply put, the healthier the society, the more successful it will be.
Opponents, however, argue that it is unnecessary for the state to invest in healthcare and education, the most significant of which is economic depression. Simply put, if the government spends the money that is in the treasury on health and education because there is no support for the withdrawal of that money, society will suffer economic depression over time. Despite the fact that if that money was used in other areas such as the restoration of historical monuments and iconic building, could attract tourists, boost the economy, and create job opportunities.
In conclusion, while governments prioritize the well-being and education of their citizens, I would argue that neglecting economic and financial restrictions can have detrimental effects. It may result in an economic recession, which holds significant long-term consequences for the nation.