captainawesome
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,568
- Reaction score
- 487
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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?
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.
For example, why, when ABS and traction control first came out did the government not mandate that they be installed in all new cars? ...
A good point, at least on the surface...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?
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 ??
which costs money, which necessitates taxes, which infringes on economic rights
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.
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?
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?
excuse me?its simply false to state that taxes infringe on any economic right
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?