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] 2 points 7 months ago (28 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 (13 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 (12 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)