From talking to some of my friends in the 'Smart Redneck' category, it occurs that their gut contains more information about a lot of the things that make most neurotypicals say 'ick' than just 'ick'.
For instance, the usual response by a neurotypical to the idea that people could sell, rather than just donate, organs (usually kidneys), comes out as 'ick'. Sometimes Second Sigma Sophists wrap it in a veneer about 'exploitation' or 'social justice', but they don't actually believe that, at least by the revealed preferences test.
However, talking with some of my allies in a pure listening mode, lubricated by a few drinks, one finds that their guts contain more than ick or folk Marxist sophistry.
One concern is that if kidneys, et al, are saleable, that the value of same will be entered onto every person's 'balance sheet', and taken into consideration before eligibility for things like financial aid at college, Medicare/Medicaid, and the like. They agreed with my basic argument that people are selling chunks of expected lifespan all the time with jobs like roughneck on offshore rigs or contractor in dangerous areas. It probably helps that some of them have actually worked such jobs themselves. My suspicion is that they grok that the delta from forbidden to mandatory is awfully small in 21st century America.
A related concern as regards legalization of prostitution would be that women would be EXPECTED to accept jobs in that 'growth industry' should they be unemployed. I vaguely recall a case to this effect from Germany some time back, so frankly that concern is hardly paranoid. It's just one or two unprincipled exceptions away.
The common theme in all of these things is that it is really hard in the US for something to be legal but discouraged and low status, especially when the Cathedral lawyers get involved.
The Vipers Are Now in Charge
11 hours ago
Even dumb rednecks are smarter than most right-thinking progressives
Interestingly, the smart rednecks are quite a bit more willing to give these 2 'ick' issues a fair shake than are their equivalents in the more progressive 'Second Sigma', who usually just go 'ick' or toss a folk Marxist line that they don't actually believe.
I suspect that a lot of others have the same dread underneath their ick, but just can't articulate it.
Another thing to think about is how organ sales would interact with "brain death." Presumably, the way I would sell my heart or my liver is that I would sign a binding contract saying "When I'm dead, my liver is yours, in exchange for $5000 now." There would be a database, accessible to all hospitals, so that they could know which dying patients to keep alive long enough to cut apart for harvesting.
It is pretty clear that living people are being vivisected and killed for their organs right now in the US as a matter of routine. The existence of the database (and the general commercialization of organs) would seem to increase the incentive for overenthusiastic harvesting.
Indeed that concern did come up in the conversation, although the contract envisioned was a 'time of death' sale, rather than a money now, my organ at time of death matter. They worried that it would influence things like DNR orders from the family.
"it is really hard in the US for something to be legal but discouraged and low status, especially when the Cathedral lawyers get involved."
So you suspect it wasn't always this way? If so, what was it like and how do you know?
Proggies see popular dislike as a reason to outlaw a thing. But is that really so unique?
Before 1900, there basically was no such thing as drug laws in the US at the national level, nor any apparatus to enforce such. But there were plenty of drugs, and the use of them was considered low status. Most patent medicine, for instance, was pretty heavy in morphine.
Was, therefore, patent medicine considered low status? It was for layabouts and brigands and such?
And, as per prohibition, they could have had the apparatus, they just didn't.
It was for old beaten down soldiers---CSA vets in particular, who got hooked on morphine during the war. It was also a 'secret shame' for some housewives and the like. Basically, low status and somewhat embarassing, but not illegal. The apparatus for it started building with the FDA, which was a progressive thing. Progressives really started gaining power at the turn of the century (@1900).
I see, thanks.
Pot and a lot of other drugs were thought of the same way---associated with lower class blacks and Mexicans. Of course, having low status made them easy meat for the Progressives once they got rolling.
Post a Comment