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

Gimme your opinion

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.

[MERIZoC]

Expand your OP. What do you think? As for the question, civil rights. Case in point, Nazi Germany.

[Keronians]

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

Gimme your opinion

Keep my stomach full and I won't riot.

Although it's virtually impossible to have a good economy when minority groups are oppressed. Everyone would have economic rights, even if they don't have civil rights.

[Keronians]

Expand your OP. What do you think? As for the question, civil rights. Case in point, Nazi Germany.

Case in point: the Second Spanish Republic.

[MERIZoC]

Expand your OP. What do you think? As for the question, civil rights. Case in point, Nazi Germany.

Case in point: the Second Spanish Republic.

Not familiar with Spanish history. Expand.

[Geilinor]

Case in point: the Second Spanish Republic.

Not familiar with Spanish history. Expand.

Overthrown by Francisco Franco following a civil war. A suffering economy will one day fall to tyranny. That's what led to Nazi Germany.

[MERIZoC]

Not familiar with Spanish history. Expand.

Overthrown by Francisco Franco following a civil war.

Well, yeah, I know that much. But as for how it relates to the topic, I'm unsure.

[Geilinor]

Overthrown by Francisco Franco following a civil war.

Well, yeah, I know that much. But as for how it relates to the topic, I'm unsure.

The Second Spanish Republic had good civil rights but a struggling economy.

[Aurinsula]

It's not an either/or, and framing it as one clouds the question. The Spanish Second Republic did indeed have a struggling economy, but there's no reason to believe that it had a struggling economy because of its liberal civil rights, or that a curtailment of those rights would have improved the economy.

[Ripoll]

You can have both, picking one or another is simply the wrong debate to have in mind.

[MERIZoC]

You can have both, picking one or another is simply the wrong debate to have in mind.

And the two often go hand in hand. As is the reverse true.

[Lalaki]

I support both equally, in a liberal representative democracy.

[Geilinor]

Both options presented will eventually fail. The first one will go down in revolution and civil war when people want their civil liberties, the second one will go down in revolution and civil war when people want bread.

[Skeckoa]

Both options presented will eventually fail. The first one will go down in revolution and civil war when people want their civil liberties, the second one will go down in revolution and civil war when people want bread.

I want to say off the bat that that is not true (I don't have any facts yet, but I find the idea fascinating). The first example I can think of is the looser leash that Chinese citizens subjects have for their government due to the fact that they are now almost all richer.

Revolution (political uprising, intifada, marches, whatever) has an associated cost. People who participate believe themselves more productive marching as opposed to doing something else (family timing, working, training). Richer people have more to lose (in terms of time and wealth) from uprising, advocating for change. I am not trying to say that Economy or Civil Rights is more important that the other, but what I am saying is the whole "either one would lead to revolution" is completely true.

[Geilinor]

The first example I can think of is the looser leash that Chinese citizens subjects have for their government due to the fact that they are now almost all richer.

Currently, yes, Chinese citizens are gaining somewhat more freedoms but I doubt the current political system is stable in the long run. A combination of civil rights and a strong economy is much more preferable so to the OP's question I would say both are equally important.

[Dooom35796821595]

Economy. Economy overrides every other consideration, no economy means no civil rights.

In that sense it's unbalanced, as the ecomomy is the foundation of all other positive aspects of a society, but put ahead of everything else tends to lead to it collapsing in upon itself. So you can choose civil rights over a .3% increase in GDP but it relies on a solid economy to start with.

[Greater Weselton]

I would say rights are better.

[Skeckoa]

Currently, yes, Chinese citizens are gaining somewhat more freedoms but I doubt the current political system is stable in the long run. A combination of civil rights and a strong economy is much more preferable so to the OP's question I would say both are equally important.

Are they gaining more freedoms, I didn't say that they were in my post (in case that is what you understood). Is there some sort of metric where I can see this, i'll go googling too but do you know one right off the bat?

[Shilya]

Civil rights any day.

You can be comparatively poor, but happy with what you have, if you're at least free to live your life with it. It doesn't help you if you're rich, but can't live a free life.

[Geilinor]

Currently, yes, Chinese citizens are gaining somewhat more freedoms but I doubt the current political system is stable in the long run. A combination of civil rights and a strong economy is much more preferable so to the OP's question I would say both are equally important.

Are they gaining more freedoms, I didn't say that they were in my post (in case that is what you understood). Is there some sort of metric where I can see this, i'll go googling too but do you know one right off the bat?

I thought that's what you said, but I think the government has started to crack down more on minority groups.

[Skeckoa]

I thought that's what you said, but I think the government has started to crack down more on minority groups.

Sorry for not being clear. I was saying that CHinese people are getting richer by and large. Not more free, just more wealthy.

[Sebastianbourg]

I don't give a shit about civil rights if I live comfortably.

[The Serbian Empire]

Civil Rights tend to be a product of economic growth. If you have too much poverty, the tyrants will not be from the government but from gangs of muggers.

[Spearo]

I don't give a shit about civil rights if I live comfortably.

You would if you were a woman who couldnt vote, a gay who couldnt marry or a black who was enslaved.

[Dinake]

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

Gimme your opinion

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.

By 1., I assume you mean something like the segregationist south, where the average person has OK or excellent civil rights, but an oppressed group has few or none. By a good economy, I assume you mean a stable one that is capable of supporting the population without international aid.
I would prefer suffering civil rights with a great economy, because I value being able to eat above being able to criticize the government(yes, this calculation was made with the assumption that I would be a member of the oppressed group).