this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13198 readers
375 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 42 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Having the poors sell their organs is ghoulish, yes. No need to outsmart yourself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This is aggravating. It's a carefully considered plan designed to avoid the ghoulish scenario of "poor people selling their kidneys," evidently designed by someone smarter than either of us.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

a government purchase program for kidneys isn't really that innovative. Many governments procure food grains, wool etc at a floor price.

the issue is with getting money involved. under capitalism, you have a class of unemployed, underemployed and underpaid workers who are desperate for money. it doesn't matter if Government is buying kidneys and distributing it through a fair lottery system, the coercive element is still there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But the system is designed to avoid the scenario of poor and desperate people selling their kidneys.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

His organization’s proposal, for example, would split the $50,000 payment into installments arriving only around tax season to weaken donation as a get-rich-quick scheme. Even now, donation requires a weeks- to monthslong process of physical and psychological evaluation.

the compensation is still there. i meant that any compensation, whether in form of tax credits, installments or even a house is coercive under the capitalist system.

who do you think will be giving kidneys for $50,000? a person who earns $10k a year or a person earning $1m a year?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I'll admit I don't know much about American taxation, but in Canada someone who earns $10k a year pays $0 in taxes, and therefore would gain $0 from selling their kidneys under this scheme.

I reckon this option would mostly be considered by people who earn $80k a year or more. We should encourage more people in this bracket to be donating their kidneys.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't really matter how its designed. The reality is that only desperate people are going to sell their organs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How could it "not matter how it's designed"? Do you realize how limiting that statement is? You're saying there's literally no way to ethically encourage people to donate their kidneys no matter how hard you try.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If money is changing hands, yes that is my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's absurd. You're merely applying the general principle that capitalism is bad in all circumstances. Sure, let's tear down capitalism -- but if we live in a capitalist society, you can't just draw a circle around what look to me like comparatively ethical capitalist practices and say "that's ghoulish."

What if kidney donors were awarded with a doctor's note for paid time off work? Would that then be unethical? How about if the award is being bumped up to the top of the kidney donor's list? (That's real and already happening! Isn't that ghoulish?)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

Neither of those examples include monetary compensation for the kidney. The paid time off work should be a given for someone who is donating a kidney, but they are being compensated by their employer at the same rate they would have been had they just gone to work. Someone who makes $15/hr would actually "make" less off the kidney donation than someone making $50/hr, but either way they could have just not donated the kidney and ended up with the same amount of money...and their kidney.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/100k-a-year-is-low-income-in-the-bay-area-according-to-new-report/

Besides, I don't see how a $10k a year tax credit for next five years would be an appealing incentive considering the 'cost' of doing the same is being cut open and having your kidney taken (much more invasive than a blood donation), if your other kidney fails you are screwed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.

I said it before, I'm not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.

I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.

Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there's not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there's a 50% chance you're right, there's still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

Counterpoint: no it's not

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're eligible to receive a kidney if you've operated a small business in a disadvantaged community for five years. The kidney will be delivered as a tax credit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Thst's cool! I didn't know that.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

This is a joke mocking liberals and their terrible ideas that help no one but rich people

I think this is a dangerous place for you if you're this gullible and this politically illiterate

Fair warning so you don't end up getting yourself dog piled for posting more shit takes, post carefully

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Seems like most recognize he is genuine and not sh*tposting or trolling... I have to admit I thought it was an elaborate bit (it still might be, I honestly cannot tell)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Pretty sure it’s genuine. I can imagine someone with family or a close friend on a donation list or someone who works for an organ donor organization trying to see this in a good light.

But yeah I was a little suspicious at first too.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The holocaust was also a carefully considered plan, but their reasons and the outcome they hoped for were as nonsense as this

A move like this under capitalism will only enhance suffering

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"The holocaust was also a carefully considered plan" is a fully-general rebuttal to any carefully considered plan.

A move like this will definitely decrease the suffering of people who lack functioning kidneys. It will not affect the suffering poor and desperate.

Obviously, we should abolish capitalism entirely, because capitalism causes suffering. I'm not advocating for capitalism here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It will not affect the suffering poor and desperate.

you realize that hundreds of poor and desperate people would die from this procedure if this saw mass adoption right? Even if relatively safe it is a MAJOR procedure, and carries risk of death or complications.

You would condemn them to die?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They should be well informed. The risk of dying is around one in ten thousand -- less than the risk of death giving birth.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

and there are MILLIONS of desperate people for whom 50k would be immensely tempting

I also don't think we should exploit desperate people as surrogates, so idk how that affects anything that is also not a good thing

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

...and they wouldn't get a penny from donating their kidney under this system. Desperately poor people don't benefit from tax credits.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Weren't we talkin about payments of 50k? If its actually, no joke, for real, 50k in tax credits, this is a worthless gambit

there are so few people for whom 50k in TAX CREDITS maters in the slightest

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

It's tax credits, yes. I see the source of confusion now.