The needs of many versus the rights of a few.

I've been watching far too much crime dramas lately, and the question came to me; At what point do we sacrifice the rights of a few for the good of many? Is there a time when it is appropriate to do so? Is it ever right?

In many crime shows, there is usually some sort of sticky question as to the rights of the accused. On TV, these laws are often stretched and in some episodes, broken, albeit for the good of the general public. While I have no idea what actually happens in the real world of law enforcement, the question still remains; what rights do individuals have and when are they superseded by the general public?

The manifestation of this issue could be perfectly examined through the problem of special interest groups. They are on both sides and on both parties, advocating things from union rights to enviromental rights, gun rights to gay rights, right-to-die to right-to-choose. According to law, unions have the right to exist. According to the same law, corporations have a right to profit and cut costs. Unions today often have a difficult time distinguishing between protecting their members from corporate cuts and taking their whole company under, creating a ripple effect through every supplier and purchaser involved with them. (Remember Detroit?)

This is just one example of the conflict of rights. Whose take precendent? Who gets the trump card?

The easy answer is that the good of many trumps the good of a few. But obviously ignoring the rights of those few deviates from the foundation of this country and law---namely that everyone is free and has certain INDIVIDUAL rights.

The trouble is the balance of these two important weights on the scales of justice and harmony. Far too often, in today's America, the rights of the individual outweighs all.

Obama's new Health Care I believe to be a mistake because it places burden and cost on those who have insurance and earn it. I am not saying that everyone who does not have health insurance is a lazy bum, but there are far less unisured people who are genuinely in need than there are people who have coverage and earn it. I believe there should be something done about health care and uninsured people, but forcing health care on everyone is not the answer.

In many Wisconsin DUI cases, we hear of multiple offense drunk drivers getting off with light sentences and slaps on the wrist. I don't care what reason is given---this is wrong. The justice system has clearly not placed the emphasis on the public that is in danger from these irresponsible drivers on the road.

On the other side of the coin, however, lies the basic rights of this country, freedom of the individual right to religion, freedom, and of course, pursuit of happiness.

How do we decide?