• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much money is a person's rights worth?

How much money should the government spend to secure 1 person's rights.

  • $1-$10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $10-$100

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $100-$1,000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $1,000-$10,000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • $10,000-$100,000

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • $100,000-$1,000,000

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Between a million and a billion dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Between a billion and a trillion dollars

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • More than a trillion dollars but some limit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Absolutely no limit whatsoever

    Votes: 7 77.8%

  • Total voters
    9

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,987
Reaction score
5,421
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In another thread, someone said this:

Of course I would! There is no limit! Denying even a group of ten people their basic human rights is a crime against humanity.

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?
 
Depends on who the person is, what right is involved, and what the circumstances are. I don't really believe in "human rights" being some great objective moral thing.
 
After minimal thought I fail to see the purpose of government beyond securing personal rights...one or many is irrelevant.
 
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 ??
 
There should not be any amount of expenditure required to insure an actual right.
 
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?

The government should spend money only on what it is specified to do. No more, no less. Besides governments don't secure rights, people do.
 
There should not be any amount of expenditure required to insure an actual right.

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?
 
50 million for each taliban head to secure the right of each Afghanistan citizen
 
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 ??

There are more rights than just those enumerated in the Constitution.
 
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?

There should be no limit. For the simple fact that if you secure one persons Right to <X> from being infringed then you secure everyones Right to <X>. If you infringe on one persons Right to <X> then precedent is set and you can infringe on everyones Right to <X>.
 
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?

Morality really doesn't have monetary value.
 
Interesting question.


I say whatever the public will endure.
 
There should be no limit. For the simple fact that if you secure one persons Right to <X> from being infringed then you secure everyones Right to <X>. If you infringe on one persons Right to <X> then precedent is set and you can infringe on everyones Right to <X>.

But what if the group of people to whom <X> is applicable is very very small? Not all rights apply to everyone.
 
All Rights do apply to everyone. Whether a person uses that Right or not is entirely up to them.

That's just a matter of semantics. Gay marriage technically applies to everyone, but only gay people will actually take advantage of that right and they are a small subset of the total US population.

Rights for transgender people are a similar example. Sure, they technically apply to everyone, but only a small group of people are in a position to take advantage of those rights.

That's more what I'm talking about. Rights that focus on issues which only a small group of people will ever take advantage of.
 
That's just a matter of semantics. Gay marriage technically applies to everyone, but only gay people will actually take advantage of that right and they are a small subset of the total US population.

Rights for transgender people are a similar example. Sure, they technically apply to everyone, but only a small group of people are in a position to take advantage of those rights.

That's more what I'm talking about. Rights that focus on issues which only a small group of people will ever take advantage of.

Doesn't matter. Just because only a small group will take advantage of it is irrelevent. A Right is a Right.

Think about it this way. If we stop trying to protect a Right just because only a few people will take advantage of it all because of money then what is to stop a small very rich group of people from getting rid of a more used Right the same way, IE money. Or what is to stop the Government from spending its "unlimited supply of money" (compared to joe blow) from removing the Peoples Rights because of some set amount of money?

Money is a very poor reason to stop defending ones Rights.
 
Doesn't matter. Just because only a small group will take advantage of it is irrelevent. A Right is a Right.

Think about it this way. If we stop trying to protect a Right just because only a few people will take advantage of it all because of money then what is to stop a small very rich group of people from getting rid of a more used Right the same way, IE money. Or what is to stop the Government from spending its "unlimited supply of money" (compared to joe blow) from removing the Peoples Rights because of some set amount of money?

Money is a very poor reason to stop defending ones Rights.

Why are rights any different than lives? We have a limit on how much we'll spend to defend someone's life.
 
Why are rights any different than lives? We have a limit on how much we'll spend to defend someone's life.

A combination of GM/Transgender vs abortion? I see no limit in the amount being spent on either end. Even those on death row costs the state more than just simply keeping them in prison until they die. So I don't see a limit being placed on defending someones life. Where's the limit? Avenues may run out or the money may simply run out but it keeps being spent until one or the other "ending" is reached.
 
A combination of GM/Transgender vs abortion? I see no limit in the amount being spent on either end. Even those on death row costs the state more than just simply keeping them in prison until they die. So I don't see a limit being placed on defending someones life. Where's the limit? Avenues may run out or the money may simply run out but it keeps being spent until one or the other "ending" is reached.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom