Also, Joe, I assume you'll be voting Republican in the next election. You seem so opposed to the government taking your property and using it to better the lives of others that you want there to be no taxes, right? Or is your money not also your property?
I'm a lifeguard standing on the beach laughing while people drown in the lake.
You seem to think you have some sort of duty to save people. You don't have such a duty.
Also, Joe, I assume you'll be voting Republican in the next election. You seem so opposed to the government taking your property and using it to better the lives of others that you want there to be no taxes, right? Or is your money not also your property?
Taxes are a part of the social contract. I pay taxes because I want to enjoy the benefits of living in society, just as I pay money in order to see a concert or play a videogame, not because I have some idea that my taxes better the lives of others.
I'm a lifeguard standing on the beach laughing while people drown in the lake.
You seem to think you have some sort of duty to save people. You don't have such a duty.
Then we don't have a duty to save YOU. If you're not an organ donor, then when you go to see the doctor they'll just ignore you. Okay?
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
But we tax citizens for the benefit of the society at large, including those so taxed. How is an organ tax any different from a money tax?
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
But we tax citizens for the benefit of the society at large, including those so taxed. How is an organ tax any different from a money tax?
It was never part of our social contract that government could take pieces of our bodies upon death. We can pay taxes with money, the government can fine us, seize our property and restrict our liberty if we violate laws. Personal ownership of our bodies and the expectation to be free from the infringement of such ownership, on the other hand, is something that that law is very reluctant to abrogate.
If you don't think an organ tax is different than a money tax, why not allow the government to take organs as part of criminal penalties? If a person can live without a spleen, maybe the criminal penalty for robbery could be amended to allow for a defendant's spleen to be taken. Would that be okay?
If you don't think an organ tax is different than a money tax, why not allow the government to take organs as part of criminal penalties? If a person can live without a spleen, maybe the criminal penalty for robbery could be amended to allow for a defendant's spleen to be taken. Would that be okay?
As the person is still living, it would likely be prohibited as being cruel and/or unusual. You can't be cruel to the dead.
It was never part of our social contract that government could take pieces of our bodies upon death. We can pay taxes with money, the government can fine us, seize our property and restrict our liberty if we violate laws. Personal ownership of our bodies and the expectation to be free from the infringement of such ownership, on the other hand, is something that that law is very reluctant to abrogate.
But once someone is dead, they own nothing. The estate does, and it's all just property. You've begged the question that our social contract couldn't involve organs. At best, we lacked only the ability to save organs when our nation was founded. Our social contract changes all the time, and I see no compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate.
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You keep falling back on the law. Forget the law, think only of morality. There is no social contract or legal duty to save people. But if you don't do it, you're a sub-human disgusting piece of shit.
If you don't think an organ tax is different than a money tax, why not allow the government to take organs as part of criminal penalties? If a person can live without a spleen, maybe the criminal penalty for robbery could be amended to allow for a defendant's spleen to be taken. Would that be okay?
As the person is still living, it would likely be prohibited as being cruel and/or unusual. You can't be cruel to the dead.
How would it be any more cruel than a monetary fine? The person can still live. He wouldn't feel any pain during the operation. He'll feel much less pain during recovery than the person waiting for an organ feels for lack of the organ they need. It's not going to be much different than chemical castration.
"Cruel and unusual" is a weird phrase. What about prison is not "cruel and unusual"? What, about punishment in general, is not "cruel and unusual"? Is treatment that qualifies as "kind and normal" apt to work as punishment?
Our social contract changes all the time, and I see no compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate.
When does the social contract change? Are you really talking about the social contract or do you mean the body of statutory law?
YOU might not see a compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate, but many people disagree with you. That's why the law allows freedom to choose. I can't believe that both of you are arguing against a person's freedom in this instance. If you think you can convince enough people that the state of the law should be changed, you're welcome to try, but I don't expect you'll get very far.
I don't care what YOU do with YOUR organs, just as you should not care what I do with MINE. Please remember, I got into this because Scott called Sonic moronic and selfish because he wants to exercise his freedom. As much as it may pain you, we retain this freedom and we will not likely have to give it up anytime soon.
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You keep falling back on the law. Forget the law, think only of morality. There is no social contract or legal duty to save people. But if you don't do it, you're a sub-human disgusting piece of shit.
I'm pretty sure the only reason you want people to forget that law is that you don't know it very well and the reason you want people only to think of morality is that you want to impose your personal morality upon other people.
"Cruel and unusual" is a weird phrase. What about prison is not "cruel and unusual"? What, about punishment in general, is not "cruel and unusual"?
Punishment in general, or at least retributive justice in particular, is indeed cruel and unusual.
I don't care what YOU do with YOUR organs, just as you should not care what I do with MINE.
Sorry, but I do care, and I think I should care, and I think you should care, because your organs are potentially very valuable to society, while they would be worth nothing to you or your family after your death.
I can't believe that both of you are arguing against a person's freedom in this instance. If you think you can convince enough people that the state of the law should be changed, you're welcome to try, but I don't expect you'll get very far.
I'm not arguing against a person's freedom. Once you are dead you are no longer a person. You don't exist. Your corpse is just an object, no different than this piece of paper on my desk. If you really insist on making this a legal issue, the government cay pay the family the value of the corpse via eminent domain.
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You keep falling back on the law. Forget the law, think only of morality. There is no social contract or legal duty to save people. But if you don't do it, you're a sub-human disgusting piece of shit.
Fuck you. Don't call people sub-human, especially when it's nowhere near deserved.
How would it be any more cruel than a monetary fine?
You can earn more money, but you can't earn a new spleen.
YOU might not see a compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate, but many people disagree with you.
Show me any disagreement not based on religion or sentimentality.
"Cruel and unusual" is a weird phrase. What about prison is not "cruel and unusual"? What, about punishment in general, is not "cruel and unusual"? Is treatment that qualifies as "kind and normal" apt to work as punishment?
There's no line: it's for us to decide and generally agree.
YOU might not see a compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate, but many people disagree with you. That's why the law allows freedom to choose. I can't believe that both of you are arguing against a person's freedom in this instance.
I argue against specific freedoms all the time. I'm very against the freedom to murder and rape, for example.
Also, I know people disagree with me. I have an opinion, and I would like to see our laws changed. We have a political system to mediate these differences in opinion. I personally feel that anyone who refuses to donate organs is a selfish asshole. Why you are so offended at one person's opinions is beyond me.
When does the social contract change? Are you really talking about the social contract or do you mean the body of statutory law?
You brought up the social contract, not me. Show me the contract or shut up about it.
I'm asking you, as a person, why an estate tax on organs is any different than another estate tax. You haven't presented any rationale for your opinion beyond "fuck everyone else, I want to piss all over these perfectly good resources that can't help me in any way rather than let even a single other human being benefit from them after I'm dead."
I'm pretty sure the only reason you want people to forget that law is that you don't know it very well and the reason you want people only to think of morality is that you want to impose your personal morality upon other people.
And I'm sure you don't want to talk about morality because you would have to admit you are evil, mean, selfish, and cruel. There are lots of things that are legal that shouldn't be and lots of things that are illegal that shouldn't be. There's really no point in discussing what is legal or illegal because there are very clear right and wrong answers, and only lawyers and judges are qualified to make those decisions. There's only a point in discussing what should be legal and what is right and wrong. Those are things that anyone can discuss with no qualifications.
According to you just because a particular activity is legal and part of the social contract that means it is an AOK thing to do. That makes the rich people using tax loopholes and the people who smoke like chimneys in their own homes with their own children are saints. Both those things are legal and unlikely to be illegal anytime soon. Good luck getting those laws changed. Is it legal and is the law popular? Then it must be morally acceptable!
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You keep falling back on the law. Forget the law, think only of morality. There is no social contract or legal duty to save people. But if you don't do it, you're a sub-human disgusting piece of shit.
Fuck you. Don't call people sub-human, especially when it's nowhere near deserved.
Are you saying that someone who could easily save a life at little to no expense and deliberately chooses not to is not sub-human?
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You keep falling back on the law. Forget the law, think only of morality. There is no social contract or legal duty to save people. But if you don't do it, you're a sub-human disgusting piece of shit.
Fuck you. Don't call people sub-human, especially when it's nowhere near deserved.
Are you saying that someone who could easily save a life at little to no expense and deliberately chooses not to is not sub-human?
I'm pretty sure the only reason you want people to forget that law is that you don't know it very well and the reason you want people only to think of morality is that you want to impose your personal morality upon other people.
And I'm sure you don't want to talk about morality because you would have to admit you are evil, mean, selfish, and cruel.
That's why I like the law so much. It protects people like me who just want to mind their own business from people like you who seem to think their personal version of morality should be imposed upon society at large.
BTW, there is a great shortage of special education teachers. You seem to think you're a smart guy. Why aren't you selfish for not running out, getting a special education teaching certificate, and fulfilling this great need?
You need to do some reading. You don't, as a general member of society, have a duty to save anyone. A doctor, to whom you go to in order to be saved, and who voluntarily undertakes the duty of saving people, and is further contractually obligated to try to save people, does have a duty to use the applicable standard of care to save you.
You keep falling back on the law. Forget the law, think only of morality. There is no social contract or legal duty to save people. But if you don't do it, you're a sub-human disgusting piece of shit.
Fuck you. Don't call people sub-human, especially when it's nowhere near deserved.
Are you saying that someone who could easily save a life at little to no expense and deliberately chooses not to is not sub-human?
Yes.
You walk down the street and you see a corpse. There's someone standing next to it. You ask the living person happened. Apparently this person had a heart attack and then died some minutes ago. This observer stood there and watched the whole time. They didn't call 911, try CPR, or even yell for help. They just watched the person die. What do you think of this person?
That's why I like the law so much. It protects people like me who just want to mind their own business from people like you who seem to think their personal version of morality should be imposed upon society at large.
Until the laws change. There is a growing movement to switch from opt-in to opt-out for now, and I do bet that in the long run, opting out will generally not be an option. The youth don't care nearly as much about their dead bodies as the old guys do.
there is a great shortage of special education teachers. You seem to think you're a smart guy. Why aren't you selfish for not running out, getting a special education teaching certificate, and fulfilling this great need?
Before Scott hyperbolizes: it costs you nothing to lose your organs after death, while it costs Scott a great deal to be certified and give up his lucrative tech career to help special education students. I personally can't fault someone for not being actively altruistic, but I do fault someone for being actively non-altruistic when there is no cost to them for said altruism.
While I wouldn't call someone who refuses to donate sub-human, I do call them a gigantic douchebag. I do lose considerable respect for people who won't donate their organs, as their position is by and large unreasonable.
You walk down the street and you see a corpse. There's someone standing next to it. You ask the living person happened. Apparently this person had a heart attack and then died some minutes ago. This observer stood there and watched the whole time. They didn't call 911, try CPR, or even yell for help. They just watched the person die. What do you think of this person?
I think they're pretty fucked up in the head, but not sub-human. To call another person sub-human is deplorable. The very idea that any person could be "sub-human" is behind most of the large-scale atrocities that have been committed throughout history. So, I say again: fuck you.
I agree with Rym on this, though:
While I wouldn't call someone who refuses to donate sub-human, I do call them a gigantic douchebag. I do lose considerable respect for people who won't donate their organs, as their position is by and large unreasonable.
YOU might not see a compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate, but many people disagree with you.
Show me any disagreement not based on religion or sentimentality.
Actually, I did. People have a property interest in their body. The law protects their freedom to decide what to do with it.
How would it be any more cruel than a monetary fine?
You can earn more money, but you can't earn a new spleen.
But, you can live without it. What right does that give you to keep it if someone else can't live without a donated spleen, especially if the government takes your spleen as a result of your misdeeds?
That's why I like the law so much. It protects people like me who just want to mind their own business from people like you who seem to think their personal version of morality should be imposed upon society at large.
Until the laws change. There is a growing movement to switch from opt-in to opt-out for now, and I do bet that in the long run, opting out will generally not be an option. The youth don't care nearly as much about their dead bodies as the old guys do.
That's kind of a fall-back with you, isn't it? If reason fails, you just say, "Oh, the only reason (insert untenable opinion here) is untenable is because of all the old people. The young kids always agree with me."
Show some sources for the "growing movement" and a source for an estimate of when you enlightened young people will change the world for the better.
But, you can live without it. What right does that give you to keep it if someone else can't live without a donated spleen, especially if the government takes your spleen as a result of your misdeeds?
OK, sure, let the courts take body parts when warranted then. If you find it morally OK, then so be it.
I'm just surprised that you're OK with taking body parts from living people against their will, but not from dead sacks of meat.
People have a property interest in their body. The law protects their freedom to decide what to do with it.
What is the value of the unharvested organs? If not harvested immediately, they are useless and worth no dollars. Moreover, the family of the deceased would not even know they were taken if they were not told.
How is taking the organs any different than an estate tax?
But, you can live without it. What right does that give you to keep it if someone else can't live without a donated spleen, especially if the government takes your spleen as a result of your misdeeds?
OK, sure, let the courts take body parts when warranted then. If you find it morally OK, then so be it.
I'm just surprised that you're OK with taking body parts from living people against their will, but not from dead sacks of meat.
I didn't say I'm OK with it. I'm just showing that it inevitably arises from your desire to treat the body as though it was the same thing as money.
But, you can live without it. What right does that give you to keep it if someone else can't live without a donated spleen, especially if the government takes your spleen as a result of your misdeeds?
OK, sure, let the courts take body parts when warranted then. If you find it morally OK, then so be it.
I'm just surprised that you're OK with taking body parts from living people against their will, but not from dead sacks of meat.
I didn't say I'm OK with it. I'm just showing that it inevitably arises from your desire to treat the body as though it was the same thing as money.
I think you're missing rather an important difference between dead bodies and living ones, Joe.
One caveat I'd put forth is that I think we should allow people to choose cryonic preservation for their bodies as opposed to cremation, at least (clearly, they would have to pay for it). We could still take their organs, since they could be preserved without them, but there would be legal and logistic issues to sort out. We could also allow people to buy out their organs in advance if they wish to be preserved with them rather than without.
But, you can live without it. What right does that give you to keep it if someone else can't live without a donated spleen, especially if the government takes your spleen as a result of your misdeeds?
OK, sure, let the courts take body parts when warranted then. If you find it morally OK, then so be it.
I'm just surprised that you're OK with taking body parts from living people against their will, but not from dead sacks of meat.
I didn't say I'm OK with it. I'm just showing that it inevitably arises from your desire to treat the body as though it was the same thing as money.
I think you're missing rather an important difference between dead bodies and living ones, Joe.
I'm just making the argument based on Rym's statements that the only value organs have is their monetary value. If he didn't state his real opinion clearly, that's his problem. I can only go by the plain language of what he said, and what he said was that he thinks the only value that should be ascribed to organs is a monetary one. This doesn't reflect what I think about the value of either live or dead organs.
One caveat I'd put forth is that I think we should allow people to choose cryonic preservation for their bodies as opposed to cremation, at least (clearly, they would have to pay for it). We could still take their organs, since they could be preserved without them, but there would be legal and logistic issues to sort out. We could also allow people to buy out their organs in advance if they wish to be preserved with them rather than without.
I don't know about freezing. I mean, if someone wants to pay for it, that's fine. It's just that I don't think it will ever actually help. Maybe we can just do heads in jars like Futurama.
Comments
If you don't think an organ tax is different than a money tax, why not allow the government to take organs as part of criminal penalties? If a person can live without a spleen, maybe the criminal penalty for robbery could be amended to allow for a defendant's spleen to be taken. Would that be okay?
"Cruel and unusual" is a weird phrase. What about prison is not "cruel and unusual"? What, about punishment in general, is not "cruel and unusual"? Is treatment that qualifies as "kind and normal" apt to work as punishment? When does the social contract change? Are you really talking about the social contract or do you mean the body of statutory law?
YOU might not see a compelling reason to treat a dead body's organs as different from any other property of an estate, but many people disagree with you. That's why the law allows freedom to choose. I can't believe that both of you are arguing against a person's freedom in this instance. If you think you can convince enough people that the state of the law should be changed, you're welcome to try, but I don't expect you'll get very far.
I don't care what YOU do with YOUR organs, just as you should not care what I do with MINE. Please remember, I got into this because Scott called Sonic moronic and selfish because he wants to exercise his freedom. As much as it may pain you, we retain this freedom and we will not likely have to give it up anytime soon. I'm pretty sure the only reason you want people to forget that law is that you don't know it very well and the reason you want people only to think of morality is that you want to impose your personal morality upon other people.
Also, I know people disagree with me. I have an opinion, and I would like to see our laws changed. We have a political system to mediate these differences in opinion. I personally feel that anyone who refuses to donate organs is a selfish asshole. Why you are so offended at one person's opinions is beyond me. You brought up the social contract, not me. Show me the contract or shut up about it.
I'm asking you, as a person, why an estate tax on organs is any different than another estate tax. You haven't presented any rationale for your opinion beyond "fuck everyone else, I want to piss all over these perfectly good resources that can't help me in any way rather than let even a single other human being benefit from them after I'm dead."
According to you just because a particular activity is legal and part of the social contract that means it is an AOK thing to do. That makes the rich people using tax loopholes and the people who smoke like chimneys in their own homes with their own children are saints. Both those things are legal and unlikely to be illegal anytime soon. Good luck getting those laws changed. Is it legal and is the law popular? Then it must be morally acceptable!
BTW, there is a great shortage of special education teachers. You seem to think you're a smart guy. Why aren't you selfish for not running out, getting a special education teaching certificate, and fulfilling this great need?
To call another person sub-human is deplorable. The very idea that any person could be "sub-human" is behind most of the large-scale atrocities that have been committed throughout history. So, I say again: fuck you.
I agree with Rym on this, though:
Show some sources for the "growing movement" and a source for an estimate of when you enlightened young people will change the world for the better.
I'm just surprised that you're OK with taking body parts from living people against their will, but not from dead sacks of meat. What is the value of the unharvested organs? If not harvested immediately, they are useless and worth no dollars. Moreover, the family of the deceased would not even know they were taken if they were not told.
How is taking the organs any different than an estate tax?