Whats more important? Civil rights or economy?

[spearo]

The title is the question, but to remove confusion I'll elaborate:



Is it

1. Better to have a country with a great economy but a suppressed people, because of the lack of civil rights (so very restricted minority's)?

or 2. Better to have a country with great civil rights, where minorities are happy and equality is nearly achieved, but a suffering economy?



Whats your opinions guys? 


EDIT: I gave myself a few minutes to think and i would believe that civil rights are more important considering that an oppressed minority would revolt, ending in death & destruction. Whereas a bad economy but good rights could continue on, case in point: Greece.

[Deleted]

My initial gut reaction was that civil rights were significantly more important, but if the economy is terrible than injustice is virtually assured anyway due to the knock on effects of institutional racism or institutional equality (whichever term you prefer). It's relatively clear that unintentionally or not, minority groups in virtually every society are going to suffer disproportionately from the effects of a poor economy. That's going to lead to greater inequality even if structurally you are trying to ensure equality by other means. So it's something of a catch 22. I think my goal would be to create the conditions that foster the greatest possible social equality while also ensuring that my economy isn't terrible.

Of course the "better" answer is that you just make sure that both civil rights and the economy are strong and that the question presents a false choice

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2014 23:07:47 GMT -5 @dirkwahlstein said:

My initial gut reaction was that civil rights were significantly more important, but if the economy is terrible than injustice is virtually assured anyway due to the knock on effects of institutional racism or institutional equality (whichever term you prefer). It's relatively clear that unintentionally or not, minority groups in virtually every society are going to suffer disproportionately from the effects of a poor economy. That's going to lead to greater inequality even if structurally you are trying to ensure equality by other means. So it's something of a catch 22. I think my goal would be to create the conditions that foster the greatest possible social equality while also ensuring that my economy isn't terrible.

Of course the "better" answer is that you just make sure that both civil rights and the economy are strong and that the question presents a false choice

Ideally, yes, but we know such combination is rare. The problem is when people make a big deal out of nothing, and end up drawing a crowd of nobodies that are fighting for a cause they probably don't care about or don't understand, just want to walk the streets waving posters and making noise, maybe end up having some fun torching cars and looting stores. That is above and beyond any civil rights. Protests are a sad thing (not all, mind), being usually fueled by the ideology of one or a few, interested only in their own beliefs.
I'm not saying people all around the world should be striped of their rights, whoever has them. But much like a father-son relationship, there should be a clear line they should never cross. When a parent lets a child do whatever it wants, the result is never good. What's needed here is action, not reaction, in the end, we really need to let some things go. The "the more i have, the more i want" is a clear social trend, and nothing but greed.
Mankind has been successful for being so keen to adapt. But in some way, that capability is being, and will eventually be lost to expectations and dependency - not from the whole, but from the few.

Now, independently of the amount of civil rights/freedom we have, we need to be backed up by a healthy economy. Personally, i'd rather live in a healthy economy, have what i need and be able to provide.

[dundeeastan]

Dec 30, 2014 21:37:52 GMT -5 spearo said:

The title is the question, but to remove confusion I'll elaborate:



Is it

1. Better to have a country with a great economy but a suppressed people, because of the lack of civil rights (so very restricted minority's)?

or 2. Better to have a country with great civil rights, where minorities are happy and equality is nearly achieved, but a suffering economy?



Whats your opinions guys? 


EDIT: I gave myself a few minutes to think and i would believe that civil rights are more important considering that an oppressed minority would revolt, ending in death & destruction. Whereas a bad economy but good rights could continue on, case in point: Greece.


Greetings from Dundeeastan. Theres no right or wrong answer in our view. it depends on the country you are trying to form. For Dundeeastan, the emphasis is on building both in a fair way for society.

[dundeeastan]

Clearly you need to try and build the nation economically while keeping the needs of the people in mind. The balance depends on the way the nation is shaped. For Dundeeastan, we promote sensible progress with social justice for all. This may lead us to growing at a smaller rate, but its what we believe in.

Hakuna Matata
The Peoples Rupublic of Dundeeastan Information Ministry
Dundeeastan Tourism Year, 2015 - Dundeeastan - Its bra, ken!
"Dundee Said Yes"

[Alexandria Islands]

Strong civil rights for citizens are more important than strong businesses. I commonly judge a nation by the quality of life that the average citizen has attained. An economy without a thriving culture is pointless. A further point that needs to be discussed is whether you can achieve a community with equality when the economy is in shambles? Put differently, would the scarcity of resources prevent the best qualities of human nature from coming out?

[Deleted]

The question puts me in a dilemma. Considering that my own nation has a ' thriving ' economy, but no civil rights. More importantly, I have come to terms that economy is important for sustenance. Civil right........ That's important for making people realize the difference between right, and right. And if somebody's already doing that for them, then..... They might as well make unjust use of it. That's the reason I chose economy.

[Parpaza]

Kind of a hard question, but in my opinion civil rights should be considered over the economy. However, a certain line should be put onto civil rights. Even though my nation has, well, a high amount of civil rights, in my view, the amount of rights should be controlled enough to make sure no one is going a bit too far (like using it as a right to discriminate other people and groups badly). The economy, on the other hand shouldn't be put on too much pressure either. The economy should be improving, but choosing it over civil rights and make citizens have *no* civil rights? Nah... But, truthfully saying, I'm stuck in a dilemma

[Congrats]

Well, peoples need to be fed and mediumly rich to even care about rights,. Its a non question, you need s decent economy for an happy society, so why not both

[Deleted]

Honestly, in my opinion, a better economy helps a nation thrive. Lack of civil rights, though, can cause unhappy civilians and riots. Honestly this is a false question, because a good nation will be better.

[formoria]

I feel like a state with extreme economic problems will always be open to extreme solutions. The rise of facism in Europe mirrored the economic problems to a tee. Countries that didn't become facist had to deal with socialist or communist uprisings which tended to be heavily anti-personal liberties.

On the other hand countries with thriving economies have no barrier to improving on those rights as the grassroots will be less politically apathetic. I'd have to say its better to have the strong economy as its an easier place to start from overall.

[Deleted]

I don't think this debate has an end.

[Deleted]

With the dominance of realism as a political ideology over things like idealism (shown by Nazi rule in the 1930's-40's and the fact that appeasement doesnt work) essentially means we can break world down into strong powers - who step on others and weaker powers that get stepped on. This means that for a nation to have a chance of self-worth and therefore protect its citizens it needs to be a strong power. Strong powers need strong economies - therefore if the choice is between repressing rights or having no influence - i would temporarily accept a reduction in the rights available. Similar to a war-time look at what we expect - with rationing and conscription all of a sudden becoming acceptable.

[gyllia]

Civil rights.

[Hahiha / USSR]

Why not both?

I mean, having a bad economy with bad civil rights means if they do revolt they attain absolutely nothing. Besides then we can blame the bad economy on the uprising and get financial and military aid from neighboring countries allowing us to in the end get that sweet economy and put those civilians in their place while we pamper citizens.

[WolfVale]

They are not mutually exclusive.

[Candlewhisper]

Obviously not, though the OP was quite clear in what he meant.

I'd say that the purpose of economy is to create worth and happiness. If it fails to create happiness, then its not a great economy.

However, you could have a great economy overall with poor civil rights generally, if the amount of happiness and wealth it creates is concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people. From a utilitarian point of view it might be argued that mean average happiness/wealth is what matters most, rather than median average happiness/wealth or baseline happiness/wealth.

As a lefty socialist though, I'd happily state that's not my belief: I think the quality of a society should be measured by the status of those on its lowest rung.

I'd also say that asking about what is better in a country is wholly the wrong question, and that the real goal should be looking at the happiness and wealth of all people everywhere. If the price of a great American economy with great American civil rights is the suffering, poverty and oppression of other less fortunate countries, then that's a price not worth paying.