Whats more important? Civil rights or economy?

[Sebastianbourg]

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.

I wouldn't mind having an intelligent autocrat in which case I couldn't vote despite being a man. The only problem is autocracy isn't sustainable; you'll have a shitty autocrat sooner or later.

[Sebastianbourg]

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.

In case my other post isn't enough.
1. It is likely that no-one could vote in this hypothetical society and even if they were allowed to do so it'd probably be a mere façade;
2. I guess I wouldn't be happy in that case but you were asking me to pick what I would prefer;
3.
a) Refer to 2;
b) That person would live comfortably would they? Personally, I chose the economy over civil rights because that would translate into a higher standard of living.

[Sebastianbourg]

...oppressed minority would revolt...

I don't think so. Unless they were a very big majority they'd probably assimilate (if the autocratic government allowed them to that is).

[Confederate Ramenia]

Neither are as important as the happiness and contentedness of the average citizen. Can your people be happy with few civil rights and extreme poverty? Yes, a great example would be the middle ages. Can your people be happy with many civil rights but extreme poverty? I'm not sure, I don't think a situation like this has ever occurred. Can your people be happy with few civil rights but a giant economy? Yes, the 60s and 70s in the US had few civil rights, a great economy, and happy people.

[The Kiddic Alliance]

Yes, the 50s in the US had few civil rights, a great economy, and happy people.

...What? How can you be sure that they were so happy?

I doubt it, with racist ads like these:
http://neatdesigns.net/wp-content/uploa ... /04/77.jpg
http://neatdesigns.net/wp-content/uploa ... 04/313.jpg
http://oddculture.com/wp-content/upload ... urbon1.jpg

Also, Jim Crow laws died out in the mid 1960s...

[Confederate Ramenia]

Yes, the 50s in the US had few civil rights, a great economy, and happy people.

...What? How can you be sure that they were so happy?

I doubt it, with racist ads like these:
http://neatdesigns.net/wp-content/uploa ... /04/77.jpg
http://neatdesigns.net/wp-content/uploa ... 04/313.jpg
http://oddculture.com/wp-content/upload ... urbon1.jpg

Also, Jim Crow laws died out in the mid 1960s...

Sorry, typo.

[Infected Mushroom]

The economy. Decisively the economy.

Gold wins wars... Not civil rights.

[Ember Islands]

As people have said before, there's no reason why you can't have both. If I did have to chose between the two, I would rather improve civil rights.

[Infected Mushroom]

As people have said before, there's no reason why you can't have both. If I did have to chose between the two, I would rather improve civil rights.

If you can only have one though, definitely the economy.

No money = no anything

[Divitaen]

I think I would prefer civil rights. A good economy is only good if people can enjoy the benefits of it, and without civil rights you may have a good economy, but you would have policemen breaking and entering your private property that you purchased with your earnings and taking your stuff without permission. You would have invasive medical procedures forced on you. As a woman you would be denied basic rights, possibly raped without recourse and forced to give birth against your will even though a strong economy means you could theoretically afford an abortion. It means gay people cannot marry even if they have the money to start a family. It means racial and ethnic minorities lose out on the benefits of economic progress and may get gunned down by police. So no civil rights still means a poor standard of living and an inability to enjoy the wealth of a good economy.

[Divitaen]

The economy. Decisively the economy.

Gold wins wars... Not civil rights.

Why is the yardstick whatever promotes military success?

[Ember Islands]

As people have said before, there's no reason why you can't have both. If I did have to chose between the two, I would rather improve civil rights.

If you can only have one though, definitely the economy.

No money = no anything

That's not necessarily true. While money is vital in the operation of most modern societies, you could conceivably have some kind of barter society which has good civil rights and a standard of living similar to Western countries.

[Sebastianbourg]

As people have said before, there's no reason why you can't have both. If I did have to chose between the two, I would rather improve civil rights.

Malnourished but with free press, eh?

[Infected Mushroom]

The economy. Decisively the economy.

Gold wins wars... Not civil rights.

Why is the yardstick whatever promotes military success?

Because armies give you power

And wars swallow up gold like a pit in the sand

[Divitaen]

Why is the yardstick whatever promotes military success?

Because armies give you power

And wars swallow up gold like a pit in the sand

So armies are good because they make a country feel more powerful? And so they can spend money upkeeping large militaries invade other countries for no reason at all?

I was under the impression we were discussing which was better for the people, not which one made the country feel stronger.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you can only have one though, definitely the economy.

No money = no anything

That's not necessarily true. While money is vital in the operation of most modern societies, you could conceivably have some kind of barter society which has good civil rights and a standard of living similar to Western countries.

Send me there please

[Infected Mushroom]

Because armies give you power

And wars swallow up gold like a pit in the sand

So armies are good because they make a country feel more powerful? And so they can spend money upkeeping large militaries invade other countries for no reason at all?

I was under the impression we were discussing which was better for the people, not which one made the country feel stronger.

If you can't defend the people, they can't be controlled. Society would fall and rights could not be upheld. The sword is mightier than the pen (contrary to the idiom). Write all the rights you want but without swords to enforce them it ain't worth spit. Swords need to be paid for and that's where the economy needs to be senior.

[Divitaen]

So armies are good because they make a country feel more powerful? And so they can spend money upkeeping large militaries invade other countries for no reason at all?

I was under the impression we were discussing which was better for the people, not which one made the country feel stronger.

If you can't defend the people, they can't be controlled. Society would fall and rights could not be upheld. The sword is mightier than the pen (contrary to the idiom). Write all the rights you want but without swords to enforce them it ain't worth spit. Swords need to be paid for and that's where the economy needs to be senior.

Yeah, because that worked out well for all the ancient monarchies and empires. They had all the empires and all the armies and they still collapsed, destroyed by economic ruin created from the bureaucracy and costliness of their oversized militaries and brought down by the pen of political dissidents. I don't want to thread-jack here, but it seems you support a paradox of a strong economy channeling unsustainable funds to a huge military to put down the dissent that would result from an economy suffering from upkeeping such a huge army in the first place.

[Infected Mushroom]

If you can't defend the people, they can't be controlled. Society would fall and rights could not be upheld. The sword is mightier than the pen (contrary to the idiom). Write all the rights you want but without swords to enforce them it ain't worth spit. Swords need to be paid for and that's where the economy needs to be senior.

Yeah, because that worked out well for all the ancient monarchies and empires. They had all the empires and all the armies and they still collapsed, destroyed by economic ruin created from the bureaucracy and costliness of their oversized militaries and brought down by the pen of political dissidents. I don't want to thread-jack here, but it seems you support a paradox of a strong economy channeling unsustainable funds to a huge military to put down the dissent that would result from an economy suffering from upkeeping such a huge army in the first place.

If it weren't for those monarchies, humanity wouldn't have made it to today.

If the cave men focused on rights instead of building an economy we would have been wiped out.

[Hyfling]

They tend go hand in hand.

A shitty economy often leads to an oppressive government (as the government has to respond to citizen dissatisfaction, riots and such), likewise a free more open government will generally have a better economy (since society is stable, so is the economy). This isn't always the case though, Nazi Germany, the USSR and modern China all have/had excellent economies, and none of them are well known for their good human rights records.

If I had to choose however, I'd probably go with a good economy. I wouldn't be thinking to much about how I have the right to insult the government without persecution when I'm starving to death in the street.

[Divitaen]

Yeah, because that worked out well for all the ancient monarchies and empires. They had all the empires and all the armies and they still collapsed, destroyed by economic ruin created from the bureaucracy and costliness of their oversized militaries and brought down by the pen of political dissidents. I don't want to thread-jack here, but it seems you support a paradox of a strong economy channeling unsustainable funds to a huge military to put down the dissent that would result from an economy suffering from upkeeping such a huge army in the first place.

If it weren't for those monarchies, humanity wouldn't have made it to today.

If the cave men focused on rights instead of building an economy we would have been wiped out.

Ok I won't even contest that. Maybe they did lay the groundwork for our society today.

But this question is about whether a society in the modern context should prioritise civil rights or the economy. Whether past civilisations were good or bad is irrelevant.

[Infected Mushroom]

If it weren't for those monarchies, humanity wouldn't have made it to today.

If the cave men focused on rights instead of building an economy we would have been wiped out.

Ok I won't even contest that. Maybe they did lay the groundwork for our society today.

But this question is about whether a society in the modern context should prioritise civil rights or the economy. Whether past civilisations were good or bad is irrelevant.

I don't want to starve

[Sebastianbourg]

Ok I won't even contest that. Maybe they did lay the groundwork for our society today.

But this question is about whether a society in the modern context should prioritise civil rights or the economy. Whether past civilisations were good or bad is irrelevant.

I don't want to starve

I never thought I'd say this but I agree with you.

[Divitaen]

Ok I won't even contest that. Maybe they did lay the groundwork for our society today.

But this question is about whether a society in the modern context should prioritise civil rights or the economy. Whether past civilisations were good or bad is irrelevant.

I don't want to starve

Great. Dying from starvation. Dying from getting shot by excessively-powerful and brutal police. To be honest, this is quite a difficult choice.

[Keronians]

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.

I have the same views as Sebastianbourg on this.

I don't particularly give a shit about voting. Democracy is a terrible form of government. The only reason we tolerate it is because it's better than the other systems of governance we've managed to invent. I'd take a competent and benevolent dictator over a democratic leader any day.

As for a gay who couldn't marry... Perhaps. I'm not LBGT, so I wouldn't understand, and even though I'm of an ethnic minority, I've been born in an era that is relatively free of racism. I don't know what racism would be like (although I'd argue that even if the government is racist, the market would not be).

A man who is enslaved is not living comfortably, so that point is moot.