This guy nails it on the head:
http://bastiatscorner.blogspot.com/2012/07/mandatory-blood-donation.html
Follow the statist logic to the conclusion and this is what you will get. Of course, it's sad that in 20 or 40 years this will be nothing novel but merely accepted as "the only reasonable thing to do."
Now if only the statists could explain the difference between forcible blood extraction and taxation. What was it that Shylock demanded? The pound of flesh he was owed. All I can say is be thankful that the government has not yet defined any particular part of your body as belonging to them... (though you could argue they think they own foreskins given their advocacy of male genital mutilation through the auspices of the AMA with whom they are in bed...)
Clayton -
Once you accept that private property is subject to the whims of government then every other statist policy necessarily follows without the possibility of an ethical quibble or protest.
"Maybe the government should require all able-bodied citizens above a certain age to regularly be screened for blood donation eligibility, and if they pass the criteria, be compelled to "donate" a pint under penalty of law. Maybe a simple tax on anyone who didn't show up for screening and a stiffer one for anyone who passed screening and didn't submit to the needle."
I recognize he's being facetious but I'd be perfectly fine with this setup.
Would be interesting to see the public reaction to a proposal like this.
Now if only the statists could explain the difference between forcible blood extraction and taxation.
Internal to body vs. external. I tried making the link myself, but it's not exactly there. I'm happy to have this argument even apply only to my body.
Its satirical.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
bloomj31: "Maybe the government should require all able-bodied citizens above a certain age to regularly be screened for blood donation eligibility, and if they pass the criteria, be compelled to "donate" a pint under penalty of law. Maybe a simple tax on anyone who didn't show up for screening and a stiffer one for anyone who passed screening and didn't submit to the needle." I recognize he's being facetious but I'd be perfectly fine with this setup. Would be interesting to see the public reaction to a proposal like this.
He's not being facetious, this is exactly the logic of the recent socialization of healthcare, act or we'll tax you. That new logic will result in utter tyranny in time.