Whats more important? Civil rights or economy?

[Fortschritte]

I find it incredibly difficult to pick one or the other. A liberal democracy should value and prioritize both.

[Anollasia]

Civil rights, of course.

[St Marcila]

I support both equally, in a liberal representative democracy.

Pretty much this. If you're debating on ether or you're debating it right. Who says you can't have outstanding civil rights and a strong and stable economy?

[Sebastianbourg]

I support both equally, in a liberal representative democracy.

Pretty much this. If you're debating on ether or you're debating it right. Who says you can't have outstanding civil rights and a strong and stable economy?

But the OP has asked us to think in absolutes even if we're opposed to doing so. If you could only pick one which one would it be?

[Marelius]

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.

^

[Sebastianbourg]

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.

This.

[Augarundus]

As for the question, civil rights. Case in point, Nazi Germany.

A nation known for both its terrible civil rights and terrible economic performance.

[Augarundus]

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.

China is the only nation listed that could be said to have an "excellent economy" (and even that is disputable - it has had excellent economic growth for three decades due to an influx of foreign investment and cheap wages, but now faces perpetual crises in its financial institutions, falling GDP growth rates, the threat of unemployment, and inflation). Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had high GDP's, but that was due to massive amounts of unsustainable government spending (literally buying useless or destructive projects - like overproducing concrete or building tanks - for the sake of driving up GDP and employment in order just to change the number in economic propaganda reports... all the while the agricultural sector collapsed - resulting in widespread malnutrition in both states - and shortages of consumer goods occurred due to allocations of industrial resources to the war effort), but that's all that could be said. GDP is hardly an accurate metric of economic health - the US could boost its own GDP relatively quickly by mandating all Americans go dig holes and fill them and pay each a two million dollar check, but that would obviously destroy a huge amount of wealth and waste a huge amount of time. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both economic trainwrecks.