Pappa wrote:The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.
In the sense of "natural rights", I agree.
However, a nation should have a background set of clearly stated human rights, enshrined in law and difficult to change, that stands above day-to-day political legislating. Whether this is done in the form of a constitution or otherwise isn't important, as long as they exist.
Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a set of human rights should prevent an opt-out organ donation scheme, as long as it is widely known about, and the opt-out procedure is easy to do.
It doesn't matter how easy it is to do. It is still the state laying claim to something to which it has no right at all.
The state should promote donation actively, and should have advocates full time at hospitals to counsel families to do the right thing. Children should be taught that it is a very goodthung to donate, and so on. It should become the cultural norm. But the state should not cross that line.
In my view.
You could apply the same logic to the State encouraging people to donate money for the public good rather than relying on taxation.
On the other hand, the argument in favour of presumed consent could also be used to justify the state producing Soylent Green.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
rainbow wrote:Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.
Especially that last bit.
If we're limiting rights to transplant organs to those on the donor list, maybe we should limit the right to healthcare to those who pay for it. We'd soon rid society of all those pesky welfare recipients
100% verifiable facts or your money back. Anti-fascist. Enemy of woo - theistic or otherwise. Cloth is not an antiviral. Imagination and fantasy is no substitute for tangible reality. Wishing doesn't make it real.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" - George Orwell
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater
Pappa wrote:The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.
In the sense of "natural rights", I agree.
However, a nation should have a background set of clearly stated human rights, enshrined in law and difficult to change, that stands above day-to-day political legislating. Whether this is done in the form of a constitution or otherwise isn't important, as long as they exist.
Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a set of human rights should prevent an opt-out organ donation scheme, as long as it is widely known about, and the opt-out procedure is easy to do.
It doesn't matter how easy it is to do. It is still the state laying claim to something to which it has no right at all.
The state should promote donation actively, and should have advocates full time at hospitals to counsel families to do the right thing. Children should be taught that it is a very goodthung to donate, and so on. It should become the cultural norm. But the state should not cross that line.
In my view.
You could apply the same logic to the State encouraging people to donate money for the public good rather than relying on taxation.
On the other hand, the argument in favour of presumed consent could also be used to justify the state producing Soylent Green.
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.
Strontium Dog wrote:I agree 100% with everything Cormac says.
Kristie wrote:
rainbow wrote:Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.
Especially that last bit.
If we're limiting rights to transplant organs to those on the donor list, maybe we should limit the right to healthcare to those who pay for it. We'd soon rid society of all those pesky welfare recipients
Everyone can 'afford' to donate their organs. Some just choose not to. Your comparison is crap.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
Strontium Dog wrote:I agree 100% with everything Cormac says.
Kristie wrote:
rainbow wrote:Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.
Especially that last bit.
If we're limiting rights to transplant organs to those on the donor list, maybe we should limit the right to healthcare to those who pay for it. We'd soon rid society of all those pesky welfare recipients
Everyone can 'afford' to donate their organs. Some just choose not to. Your comparison is crap.
The state has the 'right' to take all your organs, all your limbs and your entire body while you are alive, its called military conscription, a tax on your corpse to support the living is very minor compared to that.
Organ taxation on death should be compulsory, sod opt outs and while we are at compulsory blood donation while you are alive. Sure we don't need all that blood but sod it take it and pour it down the drain its the anti-libertarian principle of it
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
Pappa wrote:The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.
In the sense of "natural rights", I agree.
However, a nation should have a background set of clearly stated human rights, enshrined in law and difficult to change, that stands above day-to-day political legislating. Whether this is done in the form of a constitution or otherwise isn't important, as long as they exist.
Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a set of human rights should prevent an opt-out organ donation scheme, as long as it is widely known about, and the opt-out procedure is easy to do.
It doesn't matter how easy it is to do. It is still the state laying claim to something to which it has no right at all.
The state should promote donation actively, and should have advocates full time at hospitals to counsel families to do the right thing. Children should be taught that it is a very goodthung to donate, and so on. It should become the cultural norm. But the state should not cross that line.
In my view.
You could apply the same logic to the State encouraging people to donate money for the public good rather than relying on taxation.
On the other hand, the argument in favour of presumed consent could also be used to justify the state producing Soylent Green.
Yes it could, but I think you're missing my point about "rights" in relation to Government.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.
When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.
Taxation is hardly equivalent to outright seizure of property.
Presumed consent in the case of cadavers, organs, and shit, is precisely analogical to presumed consent to have the state assume ownership of your house upon your death. Rubbish.
But then organs are extremely valuable on the grey market. Perhaps if you were allowed to opt out of paying taxes in exchange for your organs when you die..
But then organs are extremely valuable on the grey market. Perhaps if you were allowed to opt out of paying taxes in exchange for your organs when you die..
I'd be up for that.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.
When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.
MrJonno wrote:The state has the 'right' to take all your organs, all your limbs and your entire body while you are alive, its called military conscription, a tax on your corpse to support the living is very minor compared to that.
Organ taxation on death should be compulsory, sod opt outs and while we are at compulsory blood donation while you are alive. Sure we don't need all that blood but sod it take it and pour it down the drain its the anti-libertarian principle of it
We don't have military conscription in my country.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!
Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
MrJonno wrote:The state has the 'right' to take all your organs, all your limbs and your entire body while you are alive, its called military conscription, a tax on your corpse to support the living is very minor compared to that.
Organ taxation on death should be compulsory, sod opt outs and while we are at compulsory blood donation while you are alive. Sure we don't need all that blood but sod it take it and pour it down the drain its the anti-libertarian principle of it
We don't have military conscription in my country.
Which is why you will never be able to muster the troops to invade Wales!
Especially that last bit.
