Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JRandomFreeper
1. In Nudge he advocated making organ donation the default state; that is, if you didn't opt out, it would be assumed you were willing to donate your organs. Your family could opt out for you after your death. That is not even close to 'forced organ donation'. 2. Even if you don't care about that, given the totality of Sustein's advocacy (like, for example, tax breaks for individual health insurance), is he the Obama 'Czar' we should be targeting online?
29 posted on 09/08/2009 2:59:43 PM PDT by RuyDiaz (westernresistance.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: RuyDiaz

In california they don’t wait for permission to harvest your cornea’s. It is automatic and when they have found out they did so, without permission, they merely shrug their shoulders and give a litany of reasons for the mistake and how they happen all the time.

I could list them but the bottom line is the state and federal government consider you property. They even issue you an inventory number SS#


43 posted on 09/08/2009 3:32:37 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: RuyDiaz
1. In Nudge he advocated making organ donation the default state; that is, if you didn't opt out, it would be assumed you were willing to donate your organs. Your family could opt out for you after your death. That is not even close to 'forced organ donation'. 2. Even if you don't care about that, given the totality of Sustein's advocacy (like, for example, tax breaks for individual health insurance), is he the Obama 'Czar' we should be targeting online?

Absolutely we should. Below are excerpts from the book. It's the thinking behind the last paragraph that gives me the creeps. Link to a CNS News article here (some reader comments are interesting):
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53534

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

Sunstein and others may believe what they do is good for everybody. But the result of their policies leads to the erosion of individual liberty. And what a flawed perspective it is. Obama surrounds himself with scholars, and in their world we are mice in a giant laboratory. Their core beliefs are not based on the individual, but only society at large, and they care little how their policies affect individual freedom. Fundamental to our American system of government is individual liberty, always tempered by the needs of the larger society.

People like Sunstein, Thaler and Ezekiel Emanuel have spent their adult lives sheltered by academia. What they have now is the opportunity to legitimize their life's work. Forgive me if I'm not in a hurry to surrender my life or my liberty just to soothe the egos of elitists wanting to engineer a socialist utopia.

54 posted on 09/08/2009 4:05:08 PM PDT by floozy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson