[II2II]

Most rights end at a nation's border and most rights are a balance of conflicting interests. The former may be wrong, but it is the way of the world. The latter means that one person's rights may have to be restricted to protect the rights of another. Failing to recognize this by painting everything as contrasts is your choice, but it most certainly does not mean you are right.

Police investigative powers are an example of this balancing of rights. They need investigative powers to enforce the laws which protect our freedoms. The flip side is that investigative powers can easily be twisted to become surveillance, then be used to take away our freedoms. I don't know what the solution to this conflict is. I don't think anyone knows, which is why the state automatically seeks overreaching powers and the opposition seeks prohibition rather than offering solutions.

[systemvoltage]

Fundamentally disagree. Locking citizens in their own homes nationwide is terrible precedence for “balance of rights”. If that’s what “balance of rights” looks like then I have a history book to sell you.

[scohesc]

Balance of rights means nobody has rights.

If you need to "balance" the rights (read: take them away) of somebody to equal the scale, then rights don't exist in the first place.

[II2II]

I am trying to figure out whether you are arguing that rights must be absolute or that rights do not exist. If it is the former, I will point out that the rights of one person can infringe upon the rights of other people or the rights of one person can be used to repress other people. Simply put, rights are never absolute. In the latter case, I will simply point out that rights are a social construct. As a social construct, they very much exist yet society will be in an eternal struggle to define what rights are.

[tekknik]

You have seemingly avoided the point by restating the problem with balancing rights. How do you keep things fair while taking someone’s rights?