Whats more important? Civil rights or economy?

[Keronians]

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.

Not really. A money economy is several times more efficient than a barter economy.

[Sebastianbourg]

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.

How did you manage to understand what I was saying? I just edited that post; it was a mess before.

[Keronians]

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.

How did you manage to understand what I was saying? I just edited that post; it was a mess before.

Great minds.

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

In reality they are not mutually exclusive, in fact they often proved to positively reinforce one another as a wealthy society can afford to utilize their rights.

If you put me in an either or situation ... I would like to be able to not die to preventable illnesses.

[New Stinkonia]

I don't see anything interesting about people that think in absolutes. As if the only two choices are anarchy or communism. That's stupid.

[Sebastianbourg]

I don't see anything interesting about people that think in absolutes. As if the only two choices are anarchy or communism. That's stupid.

We're merely being asked which option we prefer. No-one has said they are mutually-exclusive; we've simply stated which one we would pick over the other if we only had one choice.

[New Stinkonia]

I don't see anything interesting about people that think in absolutes. As if the only two choices are anarchy or communism. That's stupid.

We're merely being asked which option we prefer. No-one has said they are mutually-exclusive; we've simply stated which one we would pick over the other if we only had one choice.

Well, it's like asking which organ would you prefer, your brain or your heart?

[Forsher]

I think, in general, civil rights will follow from a stable and reasonably prosperous economy. Once the majority of people can consistently enjoy stability there is increased pressure to reform society (to an extent this is also because reform can happen instead of constantly reacting to events). Stability is, of course, not just secured just by the economy and a good economy generally requires stability. At the same time, the ability to secure civil rights, to my mind, does rely a bit on having a good economy. In this sense, the economy matters more but only in the sense that it secures good civil rights. I am more inclined to agree with anyone saying it's not an either or choice and shouldn't be made to look like that.

[Wallonier]

In both my main nations (This Territory and its parent) civil rights are paired to a generally decent economy,
frankly I think both are great to have but I personally would rather have more Civil rights than a better economy or less political rights.

[Freemopia]

Civil rights. More civil rights = better economy.

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)? no. It's impossible to have a great economy with suppressed people.
or 2. Better to have a country with great civil rights, where minorities are happy and equality is nearly achieved, but a suffering economy? yes. A country with great civil rights would have a great economy.

[Sebastianbourg]

In both my main nations (This Territory and its parent) civil rights are paired to a generally decent economy

This is OOC.

[Sebastianbourg]

Civil rights. More civil rights = better economy.

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)? no. It's impossible to have a great economy with suppressed people.

Please do tell me why.

[Brillnuck]

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.

Agreed. Democracy is a great idea, but it can never be implemented properly. A real democracy would be direct democracy, but even that has its downsides.

[Othelos]

They aren't mutually exclusive. A happy, stable society is going to have a healthier economy.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Economy, no question about it.

You don't care much about civil rights of others when you can barely feed your family. A grumbling stomach, a pile of unpaid bills and loans to pay for 20 years ahead are poor teachers of tolerance.

Note that countries with the most extensive civil rights generally tend to be from the well-off First World end, where people have a good life and relatively few more pressing concerns, a lot of free time to think and complain about how their civil rights are being violated. In less fortunate nations that generally also have less civil rights, people are mostly too busy trying to survive until their next salary to much care about some rights they won't have an opportunity to exercise anyway, much less the rights of some small minority of people, whose complaints about a lack of rights cast themselves as crybabies in a generally-shitty situation and antagonize the rest of the populace even more.

[Nervium]

Civil rights, although they are linked to economy.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Civil Rights are more important in my opinion. If you have decent civil rights, you'll probably have a decent economy too. Not necessarily a power house, but good.

[Ostroeuropa]

With expansive civil rights, the economy will recover quick enough.
Liberty tends to be profitable.

[Sociobiology]

With expansive civil rights, the economy will recover quick enough.
Liberty tends to be profitable.

broader more equal consumer bases generally are.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Not sure why anybody would choose to live in a society that doesn't have both.

[The Kiddic Alliance]

...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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_assassination_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Ri ... Montgomery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_ ... Rights_Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
I don't think we've ever really been happy.

[Skeckoa]

Let us take this to an extreme and see if the choice is clear. Would you rather be stranded on a large island alone, or have everything you would ever want while locked in a basement?

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

Let us take this to an extreme and see if the choice is clear. Would you rather be stranded on a large island alone, or have everything you would ever want while locked in a basement?

When you put it like that, I currently live in my mom's basement with everything I need coming from here so....

[Tyrandel]

Civil rights. A good economy is useful only because it brings prosperity to society and allows people to spend less time thinking about immediate needs and more time making themselves better. A society with a powerful economy that denies its people the benefits of that economy does not deserve to exist.

Do note: Civil rights. Not political rights. A meritocracy or aristocracy (preferably the former) that permits the people freedom in their personal lives is far superior to a democracy where everyone votes for their own oppressors. Certain political rights do tend to go along with civil rights, but for the purposes of this thought experiment I am considering them separate and unrelated.

[MERIZoC]

I don't see anything interesting about people that think in absolutes. As if the only two choices are anarchy or communism. That's stupid.

Wait, what?