Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
My response is yes.
The primary reason is that it's an incentive for people to take care of their bodies. A second reason is it provides an automatic life-insurance for their survivors.
We want to incentivize people to do anything that has a benefit to society. Taking care of your body in such a way that your organs can be reused in the event of an early death is a benefit. We will have a larger number of viable organs if people do take care of their bodies. We will also have a larger number of viable organs if people have a reason to be organ donors.
Next the most common organ donor is young. They are the most likely to have organs we want. Motorcycle accident victims and what not. They are also the most likely to not have life insurance or be under-insured for the how long their spouse will survive them and how long their children will remain children. If they managed to not drink heavily and have organs that will be able to benefit society why not roll that over to their survivors?
IMO, more important than any of this (which all seems rational) - is how can we maintain balance and compassion while fending off the rigged matrix of corrupt systems eager to exploit every crisis, disaster, problem, situation, stress, and tragedy? Disaster capitalism is willing to impoverish, maim, and murder for profit.
In Canada the MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) is a good idea in theory, but like everything it's now being weaponized against us, like all politically-managed problems we face.
I think separating state and business helps. I have this saying. There are no public resources, only political resources. Of course MAID is being used against you, because it, like any public resource is a political device.
I believe that assisted suicide or even unassisted suicide should be legal. I don't agree with the MAID program because I've heard about flaws in their method and because of the absurd things they are encouraging people to consider MAID for. It's a huge mistake to integrate it tightly with the rest of the medical industry where that industry wants to save costs and reduce load.
Maybe this is another horrible business idea, but still an improvement. What you need is death dewlas. Completely private sector, done in the home, opportunities to research and meet them personally.
But schools are another thing that is sold as a public resource but 100% is a political resource for the people who run them. They always will be and always have been, except when there was private schooling. Fun fact. It's never been cheaper to run a private school, per student, than at any other time in history. Teaching materials are free. We live in a world ready to go post-IP. Finding literate adults who can teach children is no longer difficult. All of the western world could move to private schooling and you wouldn't have 80% of the population unable to afford it like in the past. We afford it anyway. Public education is something we pay for. We just happen to do it compulsively.
Yes. "Separate church and state" (both tyrannical) is a distraction from separation of government (supposedly social) and economics (self-interests).
Yes. Political resources covers the public, private, and their partnerships - all providing them the power to suck and blow at the same time.
We need less regulation (interference) and more freedom of discourse (less interference, less bots, and less corporate media and social media hegemony) so folks can establish their own Consumer Reports and community-run Yelp-like and SilkRoad-like forums.
Governments only monopolize what matters. They don't monopolize shoe manufacturing. They do monopolize communications, economics, health, justice, police, schools, transportation, etc. Homeschool pods are coming up.