1
10
“The Fundamental Rights of People In A Democracy”
Name: Ubaid Patel
Institution: VIP-Writers
, 1
I disagree with the statement “The rights of a person end where the rights of another
person begin”. The reason why I disagree with this statement is as follows: The rights of a person
are not a commodity; all citizens of a democratic nation have equal rights and the rights of a
person do not replace the rights of another individual.
First of all, the rights and privileges of a person do not represent a commodity that can be
bought or sold. The rights are invisible hence cannot be listed for sale in the global marketplace.
The rights and privileges of an individual are his own private rights and privileges. They are not
consumed like goods and services in the market. As a matter of fact, the rights and privileges of
an individual are more private than his or her organs which may be replaced or donated
depending on the needs of the medical industry as well as the consent of the individual. One can
transfer money and assets but cannot transfer rights and privileges via E-transfer, bank transfer,
credit cards etc. Not to mention, the rights of an individual cannot be borrowed from another
individual like a personal loan or line of credit. The rights and privileges of an individual are
defined by the constitution of a country. And, even though rights may be violated, they are not
meant to be attacked, stolen or violated. The rights of an individual reflect the nature of the
government, constitution as well as economy of a country. The rights of a citizen may define his
roles, responsibilities as well as his contribution to the society in general. Without the
fundamental rights like the right to vote, the right to a free speech and the freedom to express one
self without fearing any backlash are some examples of rights that define our status as a
democratic nation. If these rights were to be listed in the black market much like vehicles,
10
“The Fundamental Rights of People In A Democracy”
Name: Ubaid Patel
Institution: VIP-Writers
, 1
I disagree with the statement “The rights of a person end where the rights of another
person begin”. The reason why I disagree with this statement is as follows: The rights of a person
are not a commodity; all citizens of a democratic nation have equal rights and the rights of a
person do not replace the rights of another individual.
First of all, the rights and privileges of a person do not represent a commodity that can be
bought or sold. The rights are invisible hence cannot be listed for sale in the global marketplace.
The rights and privileges of an individual are his own private rights and privileges. They are not
consumed like goods and services in the market. As a matter of fact, the rights and privileges of
an individual are more private than his or her organs which may be replaced or donated
depending on the needs of the medical industry as well as the consent of the individual. One can
transfer money and assets but cannot transfer rights and privileges via E-transfer, bank transfer,
credit cards etc. Not to mention, the rights of an individual cannot be borrowed from another
individual like a personal loan or line of credit. The rights and privileges of an individual are
defined by the constitution of a country. And, even though rights may be violated, they are not
meant to be attacked, stolen or violated. The rights of an individual reflect the nature of the
government, constitution as well as economy of a country. The rights of a citizen may define his
roles, responsibilities as well as his contribution to the society in general. Without the
fundamental rights like the right to vote, the right to a free speech and the freedom to express one
self without fearing any backlash are some examples of rights that define our status as a
democratic nation. If these rights were to be listed in the black market much like vehicles,
