• 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

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? ...

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

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


"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.
 

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.
 
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?


"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...
 
Last edited:

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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…