I mean as a general rule of thumb, obviously some rights (ie the right to murder) must be sacrificed, just so that people can live together. Still though which is more important the good of soceity or the rights of the individuals?
121547
There are always sacrafices needed and made so that we can enjoy our freedoms. You can't force anyone to live together in peace. No matter how hard you try, it doesn't work. That is the big ideal that socialist/communist societies try to portray. History has shown them to be failures.
94264
i believe in certain situations it would be permissable. for example, if what somebody is doing affects another person or group in a negative way then the government should be allowed to step in. the government works for us as a whole, not each individual person. we are allowed certain freedoms and to do most things the way we want to but there are limits on everything. if protecting society by limiting one person's freedoms is the best plan of action then the government should have every right to do so
359950
We should devote our time equally to human and animal rights.  One should not be more important than the other, seeing as they are both very important.  \nAnimal rights are important because:\n1. WE ARE ALL ANIMALS (those of you who took biology know this)\n2.  OUR SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON THEIR SURVIVAL\n3. SOME FEEL WHAT WE FEEL
77613
dba_gregg is right - its in the Declaration:\nWe hold these truths to be self-evident That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
551596
Indeed, that is how it should be. All humans of all races should have equal rights.\n\nBut there is a fundamental problem with humans. Humans have a capacity for belief. Having beliefs can be a good thing, but more often than not beliefs lead to terrible things.\n\nOnce someone has a belief, whether or not that belief is true or not becomes irrelevant. The belief becomes "right".\n\nWhich leads us back to the original question. It's a matter of beliefs. It is a war of beliefs. There are some who believe that they are entitled to that land. More believe it is the "holy land". A lot of other people believe it was wrongfully taken from them.\n\nBut because of their beliefs, they believe that the ends justify the means. They are "right" so anything they do in the name of that belief is also "right".\n\nBut this is nothing new. It's been happening for millenia. Hitler did it, the Romans did it, etc. . It really is quite astonishing what acts people will perform if they believe what they're doing is "right".\n\nSo how can the US defend Israel? Because a majority of individuals believe what they are doing is "right". Why do "terrorists" do what they do? Because they believe what they're doing is right.\n\nBut who is right? From a logical "preserving and bettering the species" standpoint, both sides are dead wrong. Yet how often does logic come into play in situations like this. People's emotions are so much easier to bring to the surface than their logical reasoning. Especially if you cast it in the context of disparaging a perons's beliefs (see religious fervor).\n\nIn fact, all major conflicts in the past have invoked religion in one form or another as a tool for propaganda. Critical thinking is not encouraged, as it would cast doubt on whether the selected course of action is indeed the right thing to do. It happened in ancient Egypt, and it still happens today.\n\n~X~
647590
In our society we believe that all should have basic rights. Criminals have more access to these not because they have more rights, but because they no longer have access to the outside world. They cannot go out and earn money for things like doctors and dentists. As for visitation, they can lose those rights. To be punished there must first be something to punish with. Since criminals have already lost so much, the system manufactures new ways to punish these people. So they allow visitation and other things in order to reward or punish the criminal. It is simple conditioning. What else would they have to behave for if these things weren't available.\nI agree sometimes though that it seems that they "have it made." Most of us cannot go see a dentist when we need one. Why don't we just let them suffer? Unfortunatly this country believes in human treatment of its prisoners. Need a tooth filled? steal a car!\ndoesn't seem quite fair that they get stuff when there are innocent people starving and dying on the streets.
73913
The problem with Democracy is that we have a country based on equality AND freedom.  Alexis DeToqueville wrote that it is impossible for us to be totally equal and totally free because the wills of men will always cross other's boundries.  If you are posing a question of whether or not it is more important to be "humane" than "democratic", then I believe that you might have something.  Ofcourse, democrats will undeniably stand up and say that democracy IS humane, but I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder.  Fascism shows itself on many different levels, from the workplace, to households, to governmental issues, but the one thing I can say about democracy is that it at least tries for a middleground on freedom and equality.  A goverment by the people, for the people, but it does seem that the people's voice is getting a bit weaker than it used to be.
97357
Well, when you look at either system, you are placing society at the mercy of its greatest enemy---man.  Agreed, some people are ready to function in a civil setting, love and care for their fellow man, etc.  Now, when you look at it from the x-facvtor of humanity it would seem that both systems are about as good as each other---one relies on possibly evil individuals, the other relies on a possibly evil governemnt.  Me, personally, I tend more towards libertarianism, I guess it's just the pessimist in me, but I'd rather face a CEO without any caring, than a far-reaching government without caring.  And once they get all of their good ol' boys in, there's no stopping them.  Under social democracy, you have to leave the country, under libertarianism, you may have to leave your job or a city.  Oh well, as the French said, LASSIEZ FAIRE!
561722
there are inalienable human rights, agreed upon in the Geneva Conventions, that apply to all humans.  Though they may ultimately be executed, they are afforded the right to due process.  This prevents using some label like "terrorist" to rob just about anyone of their rights and have them killed.  Like in the days of the Salem witch hunts- all you had to do was call someone out as a witch, and they lost all their rights and were burned at the stake.  If terrorists had no rights by law, then if the system wanted someone destroyed, all you have to do is accuse them or frame them as terrorists and you've got them canned.  At least with due process, the system would have to really spend a heck of a lot of time and effort on pushing a falsely-accused person through the system.  It's always doable, but with due process, framing someone is harder to pull off and there are a lot more chances for the plot to unfold.\n\nWhen people defend human rights rollbacks by saying "if you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear!" it's not true.  We're founded on the principle that we have the right to overthrow our government if it fails to work for the people (Declaration of Independance) and if due process is taken away, we lose that power because the government can annhialate anyone they perceive as a threat.  I hate to sound like some sort of extremist or anarchist, which I'm not, but let's not forget our founding documents and what concepts this country was built on.
575889
Freedom is neither a right nor a privalege.  Freedom is an absolute.\n\nEvery living being has the freedom to do whatever it desires within the limits of its physical being.  One can do whatever they want,  The question is what are the consequences of acting freely?\n\nAs an extreme example one is free to murder if they choose to do so, however there are consequences of acting freely in this way.  There is no such thing as a restraint on our ability to think are act.  There are only consequences once those thoughts or action have occured.
375555
I don't think so. I think anyone has the right to do anything as long as it is not violating another's right to do the same or violating another's right to live. Therefore, it shouldn't matter. I don't think it's a big deal...but if for some reason it is, then those who are making it a big dea are not worth bothering about. It shouldn't matter what you or anyone does. People have the right to do what they wish and that must be cherished lest they'd like to be treated the same.
152762
We have all the rights we refuse to abandon.  "Rights" must be preserved, honored and exercised in order to maintain them.  Eternal vigilance.  \n\nNOBODY can take away your right to freedom of speech unless you give up that right.  You may face conflict, but isn't that what Jesus told us would happen?  "Blessed are those who are hated for my name's sake."\n\n\nStand strong, put on the armor of God, and never give up your rights.
500394
Freedom of religion - Do what you want to do as far as it doesn't violate any laws (murder, theft, polygamy, etc), Economic- Free Market with the fewest government interferences as possible (barring a reasonable minimum wage and anti-monopoly actions), Social - Provide for those that ABSOLUTELY need it, and when they get up, drop the support to force them to make it on their own.  Foreign Policy - Leave others alone, trade, form alliances (economic), but if you mess with the US, we pound your face in.  No more of this "we can't bomb them because they are in a mosque (or church, just to be fair)" crap.
175757
I think equality and freedom are two very distinct and separate issues.  Every human being on this earth should have and know freedom.  Equality (as defined) can never be settled because there is always a person, a group or a mass that believe themselves to be superior.  So, in a perfect world, all people would be free to be themselves and do their best and equal to each other simply by being Human Beings.
489498
The Bill of Rights tell you what  rights as a private citizen of this country you're entitled to.\n The Constitution tells how the government is formed,the different branches and levels of government. And,how it works explaining what it can and cannot do.\n Some of the rights I enjoy are "The right to assemble". \n                                                       "The right to keep and bear arms".\n                                                       "The right to trial by jury". Over the years, I've met several people on the Net and some of them have told me that they wished that their governments allowed  a trial by jury. I tell them that most people in this country avoid jury duty like as if it was a plague and an inconvenience of their time. If you don't use it,you WILL lose it.
489370
1. Freedom of religion - a person has the right to choose his religion and not to join a religion.\n\n2. Freedom of the press - the people has the right to air their grievances through an independent media.
491781
Once one decides that one person's rights are more important than another person's rights, it's only one small slippery slope ride away from genocide.  And I think we can all agree that genocide is a bad thing.