Are you in the US?
I wouldn’t dissuade anyone from being an organ donor, it’s obviously a great necessity and saves thousands of lives, but I’m always amazed that the bottomless skepticism of our for-profit healthcare system dries up on certain topics.
We all love to moan about greedy health insurance companies and hospital administrations putting profit above the actual health of patients and outcomes of procedures, so why is it taken for granted that, when faced with a decision to go to extraordinary lengths to save a badly injured, uninsured person, or get expensive organs for 3 or 4 insured people at the top of the recipient list, that the responsible parties will make the right decision? Hell, even without a profit motive, that can be a difficult decision that can be influenced by personal beliefs and biases.
I certainly don’t know enough about exactly how these decisions are made to have a strong opinion, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize potentially warranted skepticism as moronic.
From the bottom of the graphic:
“Total tax burden based on property tax, individual income tax, and sales & excise tax.“
Several states have no state income tax at all, so it wouldn’t make sense to only look at that.
What does make this a bit of an unfair comparison is that it doesn’t break it down by income. Compare tax burdens for the bottom quartile earners and it tells a different story.
Unfortunate that this graph starts in 1972, when the oldest baby boomers were already 27. If you compare that first section of the boomers’ line to the corresponding section of the millennials’ line, boomers were to the left of millennials around the same age.
Now, I find it hard to imagine that millennials will have the “Reagan moment” that boomers had in 1980, but this data shouldn’t convince anyone that millennials are some shining ray of hope for the future. Today’s non-voting, politically apathetic millennials could easily be swayed to the right by the time they’re the age of today’s boomers.
I see this sentiment repeated a lot lately, but it’s pure foolishness to think that conservatives will die with boomers.
There’s absolutely no shortage of shitty, authoritarian millennials. I don’t think there will be any “sigh of relief” moment when millennials are in majority of control.
Hell, back in high school my boomer Government teacher was telling us how US politics would move to the left once the Silent Generation died off. It just never happens that way.
Unfortunately, I think he knows what he’s doing. He’s counting on being able to make all his troubles go away if he’s elected and he knows that maintaining the premise that these are unfounded, politically-motivated attacks by the deep state is exactly what his devotees want to hear. He just has to keep them living in his version of reality long enough to take the throne.
That’s certainly not a flaw in the philosophy. As it pertains to the voter, you’re not expected to know the future, but you do have a civic duty to be informed when voting. If you have made a good faith effort to understand the context of the choice and the most likely outcomes of the options available, you can’t be faulted for not foreseeing the exact outcomes that unfold. If nothing else, because you can’t possibly know exactly what the outcomes of the alternatives would have been. Ignoring the most likely outcomes in favor of the most desired outcomes is what seems unethical. “Letting perfect be the enemy of good” and all that.
I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.
Similarly, I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality. There are extreme shades of grey, but never black and white. No action can be said to be universally good regardless of both intent and context, except in religious moral frameworks.
I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:
Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism.
My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.
I don’t know if “call your elected officials” is a good example of “anything that isn’t nothing.” Seems like anytime I’ve been motivated enough to contact one of my reps to oppose specific legislation, it turns out they’re one of the bill’s co-sponsors. It definitely feels much closer to the learned helplessness scenario.
The Battle of Endor is definitely the best space battle in a Star Wars movie. People give ROTJ crap because of the Ewoks, but to me they’re a non-issue, especially by prequel/sequel standards.
Or worse: bad