How much money is a person's rights worth?

molten_dragon said:

In another thread, someone said this:



Referring to the fact that they believe there is no limit to the amount of money we should spend as a country to secure human rights for even very small groups of people.

Now this isn't intended to call him out or anything, but it made me curious how other people feel about the situation.

Myself, I think as a practical matter, there has to be a limit to how much money we would spend to secure rights for someone.

So how much money do you think a person's human rights are worth? How much do you believe it would be appropriate for the government to spend to secure human rights for a single person?

Click to expand...

For me no amount is too much. For you since you don't seem to value them I would be willing to spend a dollar.

captainawesome said:

For me no amount is too much. For you since you don't seem to value them I would be willing to spend a dollar.

Click to expand...

So it's okay to take rights away from people you disagree with?

molten_dragon said:

For example, why, when ABS and traction control first came out did the government not mandate that they be installed in all new cars? ...

Click to expand...

The premise of this question fails with regards to the assertion in the OP. The government mandating ABS/tc doesn't cost the government but rather car manufacturers and consumers nor is having them a 'right'.

I don't know a number but I'll give an example that no one seems to be thinking of. If there's a law that violates your rights, the only way to get that law overturned yourself, rather then relying on congress to do it for you, is to engage in a several year legal battle after you break that law, and get it all the way up to whichever high court you need in order to get it overturned. That costs a LOT of money, which you most likely don't have, especially if you're poor.

We need a lot more public legal services, and a lot better funded ones, for exactly this purpose. Hell, just sticking a lawyer at a police station to go to the trouble of making sure that a suspect's Miranda rights are actually respected would make a big difference. But no one wants to pay for that, so people's constitutional rights go out the window.

Dickieboy said:

I agree with the theoretical 'should not' but rationally the faults in human nature necessitate that provisions are made to secure ones rights thus the necessity of government. Consider that if no ones rights were infringed what would be the purpose of governance?

Click to expand...

A good point, at least on the surface...
In the future.... a perfect world, but today.....?.........? We are so far away...

earthworm said:

Right off the bat....One minute of thinking...
nary a penny.
Why should our government spend anything to secure a man's rights ?
These rights are listed in our Constitution, are they not ?
If someone is trying to "take" them away, should not the man spend his own money.....as a cost of living ??
And IF the "take away of the right" was illegal, then those who tried this would be subject to a lawsuit.
Pollyanna ?
There is MORE to this, is there not ??

Click to expand...

A Libertarian, no doubt. No moola for gov't, all rights to citizens...

For example, should american citizens be forced to obtain a driver's license?

mpg said:

which costs money, which necessitates taxes, which infringes on economic rights

Click to expand...

"To enforce the law" (Lizzie)...BUT, in a futuristic dream world, with NO MAN'S rights being "infringed" there would be no need of any enforcement..
But, its simply false to state that taxes infringe on any economic right...
We are back to the real world...and the consumer pays for everything.

molten_dragon said:

Huh?

I'm talking about things like the costs of making cars safer, or money spent on disease research. Things like that.

For example, why, when ABS and traction control first came out did the government not mandate that they be installed in all new cars? Because they undeniably save lives. How many is arguable, but they save some.
It wasn't mandated because it would have made cars too expensive for the average person to afford one. We as a country accepted that we would allow people to die in order to save money.

Click to expand...

While life is a right, driving is not. If you choose to drive then you have a reasonable expectation that you could possibly get into a wreck. So you're right to life is purposely limited, not taken away mind you but limited, by you when ever you drive on the roads. We can abrogate our rights whenever we wish to.

cabse5 said:

A Libertarian, no doubt. No moola for gov't, all rights to citizens...

For example, should American citizens be forced to obtain a driver's license?

Click to expand...

"Progressive"
In many aspects , I could not be further from a libertarian...
Now, I think I am seeing the coins other side...
By "rights", I mean the basic ones in our constitution and other important papers..
I do not mean the case of a pick-pocket stealing ones money...AND I disagree with the conservative premise that gun-control infringes on our second amendment.
But, there are cases, I am sure, where a government or an individual could challenge a man's rights...
But should our government pay for the man's legal expense ?
Maybe .....right now, I do not know...
IF a man wishes to operate a motor vehicle on public highways, YES, he should be forced to have the license (if he puts up such a fuss)...but it is the man causing the "force", not the government...

molten_dragon said:

In another thread, someone said this:



Referring to the fact that they believe there is no limit to the amount of money we should spend as a country to secure human rights for even very small groups of people.

Now this isn't intended to call him out or anything, but it made me curious how other people feel about the situation.

Myself, I think as a practical matter, there has to be a limit to how much money we would spend to secure rights for someone.

So how much money do you think a person's human rights are worth? How much do you believe it would be appropriate for the government to spend to secure human rights for a single person?

Click to expand...

Government is responsible for making the violation of ones rights a crime and prosecuting it when it happens. But I think largely, it is not the governments responsibility to prevent it from happening besides the promise of prosecution.

There are laws that say one person cannot murder another, the ultimate violation of a persons rights, but that doesn't stop it from happening. If the government were to somehow enact policies that made murder impossible, the government itself would certain,y have to violate everyone's rights to do so.

The main function of government is to discourage the violation of anyone's rights without violating the rights of people in the process.

Technically, we spent trillions to prosecute the rights violations of UBL and billions to prosecute the rights violations of the Boston bombers, while on the other hand, we spend much less per person on more mundane rights violations like a murder/robbery, even though the same right to life was violated.

earthworm said:

its simply false to state that taxes infringe on any economic right

Click to expand...

excuse me?