Do you support forced redistribution of blood?

[AllieBaba]

Sigh. This is one of those threads where I'll have to use the quote function, I see.

I don't know if it's worth it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

In other words, you're playing games, and patting yourself on the back for being complex and super smart.

Yay you.

Whom were you addressing?

 

[uscitizen]

that's what I said, what yew dumbocrats gonna do when you run outta workers?? eat each other for the common good??

Umm jobs for workers not workers seems to be a main issue right now.

or do we just have too many workers ?

That is one way of looking at it.
And I am not sure in this case which way is half full and which is half empty.

 

[AllieBaba]

In other words, you're playing games, and patting yourself on the back for being complex and super smart.

Yay you.

Whom were you addressing?

You, in that one.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

In other words, you're playing games, and patting yourself on the back for being complex and super smart.

Yay you.

Whom were you addressing?

You, in that one.

Playing games?

I destroyed the OP's entire premise

It's a straw man, as those who believe is market democracy and welfare also believe in human rights- it's the protection of human rights and well-being that creates the need for social protections in the first place. The OP falls apart when one realizes that it ends up coming down to a simple matter of moral philosophy: should one's very body be free or the property of the masses. Few would answer in the latter and I suspect none truly believe it when they're on the wrong side of the equation.

 

[AllieBaba]

Says you.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

right...

I've yet to see you offer a refutation

 

[dilloduck]

Umm jobs for workers not workers seems to be a main issue right now.

or do we just have too many workers ?

That is one way of looking at it.
And I am not sure in this case which way is half full and which is half empty.

I think the OP is asking where the line should be if neither is advantageous over the other.

 

[Reasoning]

I think the OP is asking where the line should be

Pretty much; and I thought the analogy did a good job of demonstrating just how horrible it is when something is forcibly taken from people.

We seem to be pretty well desensitized to the fact that we work for some 4+ months of the year just to have all the income generated by that hard work be stolen via force by our govt.

Our founding fathers acknowledged that any form of government was a form of tyranny and because of that, we should keep it as small as possible.

I agree.

 

[gslack]

Well I liked the OP... Nice work reasoning. Took me a minute to establish the link in my head at first. It is a unique analogy really, never saw it that way before thats for sure.

I agree with your view on government being small to prevent tyranny as well.

Personally I don't really liken the income tax to the same equivalence the as the OP but I am not in the above 250k tax bracket either, so I suppose my view would be different otherwise. However, the income tax is an unconstitutional tax that is levied to pay the debt we accrue from the Federal Reserve. Check into it and you will find virtually all of the money from income tax goes directly to that. Therefore when they tell us that this or that tax money pays for this or that, remember its not really income tax money but rather corporate/business, trade, fees and other such monies that pays for most of those things.

As far as I am concerned until a candidate can do what Andrew jackson did back in 1836 and route those vipers from the Fed out,we are doomed to pay for our own slavery...

 

[California Girl]

Good grief.

 

[momonkey]

Redistribution means taking from some to give to others. But from whom, and in what proportion? And to whom, and in what proportion? How much? These are incredibly obvious questions but nobody asks them, let alone answer them. Why not? For two different reasons.

Those who support redistribution tend not to ask or allow others to ask basic questions about it, out of feelings of guilt and shame. Redistribution needs to be believed in and if you question it in any way there must be something wrong with you.

Those who oppose redistribution simply view it as stealing, and asking these questions is akin to asking what optimal amount of mugging should be tolerated in a city. It’s repugnant.

But let’s you and I think about it a little bit, on this April 15th day of taxes and spending. Most of the federal budget is spent on redistribution in various forms: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and many more. Let’s be a little abstract so that we can distance ourselves both from the guilt and the repugnance that quashes our natural curiosity. Let’s ask some basic questions.

How much money should be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor? Is it a fixed number that depends on the needs of the poor, or is it a variable number that depends on the profits of the wealthy? What does it mean to be wealthy, high recent income or lifetime accumulated assets?

How should the largess be distributed? Equally to everyone below a certain threshold? Should those who are poorer receive more? What does it mean to be poor, low recent income or lifetime accumulated debt?

How often should the redistribution took place? Once, to account for past injustices, or repeatedly, like clockwork?

Most importantly, how can we objectively think about these questions without resorting to character accusations?

One approach is to proceed by analogy. Start with your body. Just about everybody has extra blood. By all of the standard arguments for redistribution – need, excess wealth, not the result of hard work, fairness – blood should be redistributed. Along with your 1040, you should send along a baggie of blood. Should everybody be forced to redistribute blood?

People need blood. According to America’s Blood Centers, someone needs blood every two seconds. One in seven people entering a hospital will need blood. One pint of blood can save up to three lives. Here, the redistribution questions are easy: everybody who needs blood for medical reasons should get all that they need, whenever they need it.

Only a small minority have the appropriate blood. Only 38 percent of the U.S. population is eligible. And everybody in that blood-wealthy group can spare a little. The amount of blood to be redistributed depends only on the amount needed to save people, not on the amount the donors can spare.

Your blood type is not the result of hard work or ingenuity. Taking some of your blood, unlike taking some of your money, won’t affect your incentive to work. Therefore, we could redistribute this repeatedly.

It is only fair that those who have better blood through no credit of their own and who could safely give some of it up, be forced to do so, to redistribute it to those who need blood through no fault of their own and whose lives could be saved.

Blood is better than money because politicians can’t even pocket any. All of it goes to the intended recipients.

Do you support forced redistribution of money? Do you support forced redistribution of blood? If your answers to the two questions are not the same, you have a problem on your hands.

Prior to my surgeries (hip replacements) I donated blood for my own use were it needed. Since in neither instance was it required, the blood became available to the public after the surgeries. I have also donated blood in the past to be used by anyone needing it, and since my blood type is O-negative anyone may use it. Now since my blood is usable by anyone, should I be singled out to cover for the people who do not have blood drawn for their own use before surgery? Since a member of my family may need my blood, should the government or anyone else be allowed to take from me the ability to save my loved ones with my universal blood?

 

[Gatekeeper]

WOW, wait till Count Dracula hears about this!

 

[chanel]

Oh great. I have O- Liquid Gold. Don't be givin them socialists any more dumb ideas, k?

We have a duty to provide basic needs. No more; no less. Cable TV, cell phones, and money for pot are not "basic needs".

 

[editec]

My hat is off to Reasoning for coming up with this tortured (but highly amusing) extended metaphor.

You'll notice that he isn't character assassinating anyone, yet he still makes his political point understood?

He never mentions Democrats, Obama, liberals, progressives, or socialists or whatever buzz word floats the boats of clueless conservatives, yet he make an excellent philosophical argument against wealth redistribution anyway?

It's postings such as this that make a visit to USMB a worthwhile experience regardless of your political POV.



.