Do you agree with this?

Question

I've heard that in order to give a right to people, you have to take another right away from someone else. Sometimes you decide that the right is important to make, despite the loss of another right.

For example, to give someone the right to be safe from racism, you take away the right for people to be racist. In this case, the exchange is definately worth.

In other cases, it's more debatable. For example, if you give all people the right to have medical care reguardless of whether they can afford it, you are in turn making someone else pay for the medical care of other people.

What do you, fellow Yahoo! Answers people, think of this idea?

Answer 1

I don't agree with the "taking of rights", period. Protecting someone from racism does require the destruction of free speech, and it's not worth it to lose our rights just to soothe a few sore egos. There will always be ignorant hatred in the world, all we can do is ignore the loudmouthed bigots and spread love and peace among those who will listen. As for medical care, the Constitution does not delegate healthcare-providing powers to any branch of the Federal Government, despite what socialists may wish.

Answer 2

Two thoughts.
First, it's worth it to me. I'm willing to pay a little more in order for everyone to have health coverage.
Second, if cost is the only issue then it is cheaper to cover everyone. By making sure that everyone can see a doctor regularly, we prevent many trips to emergency rooms. The real cost of healthcare is for trips to the ER by uninsured people who wait until they are VERY ill. That treatment is far more expensive that a regular visit to a doctor and the cost of a prescription to cure an illness in its early stages. And the cost of an ER visit by someone without the means to pay is absorbed by those of us who can pay. So why not save ourselves some money?
Lastly, with fewer people running to emergency rooms, they will be freed up to take care of true emergencies when we all need help.

Answer 3

I disagree, people trade rights for protection. That is the main reason for having a government, to protect its citizens.
By having laws and officers, we are forfeiting our right to kill others, damage properties, and promote chaos but at the same time, we are being protected from these things. The problem is when the trade of rights for protection is offset in a manner that does not favor rights. In this case, the government is too large and the citizens have no rights.

Answer 4

It is true. Someone will always be upset about it, but at least the decision would have been made and we would have the chance to get over it.

Answer 5

Both points make your point.

I will respond with this:

The government cannot create wealth, only take it from one and give it to another.

Answer 6

most policy choices have trade-offs, and rights often conflict, thus, it is true that it can be this complex.