Do you support forced redistribution of blood?

Do you support forced redistribution of blood?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • No!

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3

Reasoning

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
403
Reaction score
70
Points
28
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.
 

xotoxi

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
32,223
Reaction score
5,903
Points
1,120
Location
Yuurmaam
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.
Didn't read it.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,794
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
It's easier to just see how much I feel like doing for myself in the morning and have someone else do what I don't feel like doing for the rest of the day.
If you draw a line you might find yourself on the wrong side of it some day.
 
Last edited:
OP
Reasoning

Reasoning

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
403
Reaction score
70
Points
28
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.
Didn't read it.
:clap2:
 

AllieBaba

Rookie
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
33,778
Reaction score
3,910
Points
0
Are you truly that dense, us?

I can't believe the count hasn't weighed in.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,342
Reaction score
15,793
Points
2,180
well if you have to take yer body to work every day and then hand over 90% of what you made,, I think they'll demand your blood too lessen you were borned a turnip..
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
well if you have to take yer body to work every day and then hand over 90% of what you made,, I think they'll demand your blood too

A fine attack on the capitalist system as ultimately a form of slavery whereby a man is reduced to a commodity, a fleshy cog in the machine for the production of Capital.

Marx and Engels said something similar in the Communist Manifesto.

Does your adoption of such rhetoric indicate that you've become a Communist or are you just rambling incoherently?
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,342
Reaction score
15,793
Points
2,180
☭proletarian☭;2212832 said:
well if you have to take yer body to work every day and then hand over 90% of what you made,, I think they'll demand your blood too

A fine attack on the capitalist system as ultimately a form of slavery whereby a man is reduced to a commodity, a fleshy cog in the machine for the production of Capital.

Marx and Engels said something similar in the Communist Manifesto.

Does your adoption of such rhetoric indicate that you've become a Communist or are you just rambling incoherently?
that's what I said, what yew dumbocrats gonna do when you run outta workers?? eat each other for the common good??
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
HUH? I have never heard of the forced taking of blood.
please read the op before replying lol...
I did. And since forced taking of blood is not happening then the argument is bogus.

You can always refuse to pay taxes.
No one makes you work.
No one makes you stay in the USA.

there are always choices. Of course we must live by the results of our choices.
Such as re-electing certain people in our govt and such.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,794
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
☭proletarian☭;2212832 said:
well if you have to take yer body to work every day and then hand over 90% of what you made,, I think they'll demand your blood too

A fine attack on the capitalist system as ultimately a form of slavery whereby a man is reduced to a commodity, a fleshy cog in the machine for the production of Capital.

Marx and Engels said something similar in the Communist Manifesto.

Does your adoption of such rhetoric indicate that you've become a Communist or are you just rambling incoherently?
Are you saying that the worth of a man should not be assessed in the big picture ?
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
Are you usually this illiterate or are you intoxicated?
 

AllieBaba

Rookie
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
33,778
Reaction score
3,910
Points
0
I think that's a good idea.
I'm not sure pro is a democrat, though.
 

uscitizen

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
45,940
Reaction score
4,908
Points
48
Location
My Shack
☭proletarian☭;2212832 said:
well if you have to take yer body to work every day and then hand over 90% of what you made,, I think they'll demand your blood too

A fine attack on the capitalist system as ultimately a form of slavery whereby a man is reduced to a commodity, a fleshy cog in the machine for the production of Capital.

Marx and Engels said something similar in the Communist Manifesto.

Does your adoption of such rhetoric indicate that you've become a Communist or are you just rambling incoherently?
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.
 
&

☭proletarian☭

Guest
☭proletarian☭;2212832 said:
well if you have to take yer body to work every day and then hand over 90% of what you made,, I think they'll demand your blood too

A fine attack on the capitalist system as ultimately a form of slavery whereby a man is reduced to a commodity, a fleshy cog in the machine for the production of Capital.

Marx and Engels said something similar in the Communist Manifesto.

Does your adoption of such rhetoric indicate that you've become a Communist or are you just rambling incoherently?
Are you saying that the worth of a man should not be assessed in the big picture ?
I have not commented in this thread regarding the matter. We're discussing willow's rhetoric and beliefs.

My views can be seen elsewhere on this forum- their evolution can even be tracked if one wishes to go do so
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,794
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
☭proletarian☭;2212832 said:
A fine attack on the capitalist system as ultimately a form of slavery whereby a man is reduced to a commodity, a fleshy cog in the machine for the production of Capital.

Marx and Engels said something similar in the Communist Manifesto.

Does your adoption of such rhetoric indicate that you've become a Communist or are you just rambling incoherently?
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 ?
 

AllieBaba

Rookie
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
33,778
Reaction score
3,910
Points
0
In other words, you're playing games, and patting yourself on the back for being complex and super smart.

Yay you.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top