- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Of course I would! There is no limit! Denying even a group of ten people their basic human rights is a crime against humanity.
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 not be any amount of expenditure required to insure an actual right.
Consider that if no ones rights were infringed what would be the purpose of governance?
To endorce law.
$3.97 at Walmart.
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 ??
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?
which costs money, which necessitates taxes, which infringes on economic rightsTo endorce law.
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>.
Morality really doesn't have monetary value.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?