In Soviet Wales, Organ Donates You!

Last year, I was with friends in Wales, (Wrexham to be specific). On one afternoon we went shopping and they told me that I had to pay 5p for any bags I used. In other words: supermarkets, grocery stores, retail outlets – if you want to bag your goods there is a 5p mandatory fee for the bag. Why? Because the Welsh government passed a law forcing all retailers to impose a 5p fee on shopping bags. On principle, I refused to buy a bag in any store I went to. I even carried my goods the old fashioned way. Silly? Petty? No. Because this is the thinking behind the Welsh government in plain terms:

  1. People aren’t giving enough to charity, in our wise opinion.
  2. We want people to give more to charity, despite the fact they already have the free choice to do so and obviously are choosing not to.
  3. If we point a gun at private citizens who own retail shops, they will have to do whatever we tell them.
  4. Let’s do just that, and order them to surcharge their customers, other private citizens, into paying for carrier bags.
  5. Let’s then give that money to a charity/charities of our choosing.

Stop for a second and ask yourself what the reaction would be if a private corporation used its economic power and customer loyalty to increase its profits by simply raising prices on items that customers couldn’t do without? There would probably be uproar and boycotts and harsh language and another round of “blame all the greed and evils of the world on capitalism”. Actually, it might not get that far: the government might step in to stop one group of innocent private citizens from agreeing terms with other innocent private citizens because another group of citizens doesn’t like the idea. However, that same latter group of objectors is usually the sort which despises the very idea of a free enterprise gaining wealth through voluntary trade through value exchange, but has absolutely no problem with the State using its monopoly of physical force to dictate, at the point of a gun (because that is what physical force ultimately is), what two people may or may not trade and for how much, and whether your right as a human being to aid those in need, or not, is acceptable.

But it’s all for a good cause, isn’t it?

No. For years I have warned and written about fascism in our governments and how it will only keep increasing. I can use all the clichés I’d care: a slippery slope; the thin end of the wedge; the tip of the iceberg. The point is the same. When my friends told me that the law required a 5p compulsory charge on carrier bags, my first reaction was disbelief. ‘What a blatant and horrific abuse of political power!’ But, because it’s in the name of charity, the law was passed. (Of course, it wasn’t a law, it was a statute. A law in classic terms is one that protects the rights of human beings. Historically, no one is above the law, not even the Monarch or the government. Our governments get around this by issuing statutes, which are only valid because we don’t know any better to object. Of course, we are led a merry dance by a legal system, in league with lawyers, magistrates and the police, into thinking we have no lawful recourse. We do. It’s called the word ‘no’. But I digress…)

For one thing, charity at the point of a gun is not charity. If you want to give to charity, why do you need to be forced to pay for a carrier bag to do so? And even if you’re lazy and/or mindless enough to tolerate such decisions being taken off your fragile little mind, please don’t pretend to speak for the rest of us.

This is what happens when a government thinks it is on a holy crusade to make the world a better place. Why is this a bad thing? Because it comes down to how a government gets its own way, as opposed to the way the rest of us get what we want. It comes down the difference between economic power and political power. What is the difference between the two? What is the line? Where is the line? This is a question that is almost never asked in political debates, and never answered. Too many people have too much to gain by clouding the issue. The difference is this: physical force. As much as the Left would like you to believe differently, a vast corporation can only get to the top through exchanging values (it can get there through bribery and corruption, but only by the very system the Left wants). A corporation is only successful when it wins and retain customers. Customers are FREE to choose a corporation or its competitors. If they have no choice, then the corporation is the only one which can give them what they want. Without that corporation, they couldn’t have what they wanted anyway. This is economic power – the power to leverage based on the values you possess. Political power is exactly the opposite. Political power is this: do what I say, or I will hurt you. Or: do this and I will hurt you. No corporation is allowed this power, rightly so. Governments should have this power, otherwise they couldn’t function. But that is why this power should be used so sparingly and be strictly limited. The power of the government is: the right to point a gun at a person and force them to act (or not act), or punish them for acting (or not acting). This is why a government’s roles must be clearly defined. In other words, we the people invest our right to self-defence in the government and say: only you may use physical force, for everyone else it is banned. This, this and this, is where you should use it, and in no other circumstances.

It is the government’s sacred duty to protect our Rights. It is most certainly not the government’s job to decide whether or not we are giving enough to charity, and force us to charge other people on carrier bags!

If the government can use its power so flagrantly and arbitrarily, what else will it decide to do? What other moral crusades will it embark on?

When I heard about the 5p carrier bag levy, I said ‘it won’t stop there.’ And I was right…

…because now the Welsh government has decided that all its citizens are organ donors, unless they state otherwise. Let’s think about the implications of this for a moment: by simply living in Wales, this agency has assumed that it has the power to make claims over your body! The fact that you can opt out is irrelevant. The level of sheer arrogance and abuse of power to instantiate such a statue is mind-boggling. It is despicable and evil. By what possible power does such a government even base such a ruling on? How on earth does it get away with such a blatant violation of individual rights?

Let me say this again, because it’s being trotted out by those wishing to defend “paying back Caesar’s things to Caeser”: the fact that you can opt out is irrelevant! The very notion of “opting out” implies that if you don’t, you have consented to be an organ donor, which implies that the government’s claim over your organs is valid, which means that the government owns your organs…unless you explicitly claim them for yourself! I try to keep a modicum of decency on my blog, but, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?!

What greater example could there be of a government claiming: ‘your life belongs to us’?

This is collectivism through and through. This is why a government that acts for “moral” reasons should never be trusted. This is why altruism and collectivism are two sides of the same coin. It is why collectivism always leads to Statism. It is why altruism is inconsistent with human well-being.

Almost all of us have come across the “classic moral dilemma” thought experiment at one point in our lives. The scenario usually involves a runaway train and people lying on the track, or a doctor who needs to save ten people at the cost of one organ donor. Even when confronted with the ten versus one “dilemma”, most people wouldn’t choose to kill the one innocent man to save ten (or even a hundred) because we recognise that regardless of the numbers involved, that one man’s life doesn’t belong to us. We also know, in our hearts, that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. Or perhaps we’re more comfortable with the thought of a faceless government taking from a faceless man, something we wouldn’t be prepared to do ourselves if we had to look him in the eye and explain why.

But here, the Welsh government (perhaps drunk on the power of finally being able to rule its staggering population of 3 million (less than a major UK city)), has turned that thought experiment into reality. Oh dear, it seems they’ve actually taken it literally: what do you do when you aren’t getting enough organ donors? Claim ownership of all the people you are faithfully entrusted to protect, and their organs. It’s amazing what you can do with power, isn’t it?

Of course, this raises the question: why are organ donations so low? Well, I don’t claim to have all the answers to that, but it seems to me that organ donations historically rely on one key factor: someone has to die. (But hey, we might not have to even wait for that in the future.) Maybe organs are becoming harder to get because fewer people are dying? Which raises an even more interesting thought experiment: what if, due to medical advances (no, don’t laugh – even with the NHS, it could happen…), the quality of life greatly reduces the incidence of death, and life expectancy increases? What if, due to these factors, organ donations drop 90% over the next 50 years? My question to the Welsh government is: what then?

Of course, the obvious retort might be: “we’re not saying more people have to die, just that more people have to donate”, (although it seems somewhat hard to do one without the other…). So, maybe there are plenty of deaths (hoorah), but not enough people consenting to be organ donors? It almost makes you think there could be a perfectly valid moral reason that free individuals have chosen not to be cannibalised for their parts after death. Or, maybe many just never give it a second though. (I admit, I would happily be an organ donor but I haven’t given it that much thought. Is this laziness on my part? Maybe. Does this mean I’ve defaulted on my duties and now my body belongs to the State? Nope.) Perhaps raising public awareness and education is the way to go? Maybe people aren’t feeling particularly generous towards others (I can think of a few reasons why, in this day and age – what, when everyone seems to be lobbying the government to get something off you)?

Nah, much easier to do it by force. And the most damning part of this is that the statue passed by 43 votes to 8 with two abstentions. That’s 81% of the government which saw no problem in claiming property rights over the people it exists to protect.

This wicked and inhuman action by a tin-pot government sets a very dangerous precedent, just like the silly 5p carrier bag fee did.

And the saddest part is that the most outspoken critics of this action are religious leaders! Jesus Christ, what have we come to when the people who believe in invisible beings in the sky are the ones leading the charge for morality?! Oh but don’t worry, these are the nasty religious zealots the left-wing humanists are so eager to get rid of before they fill your kids’ heads with nonsense (in their Church of England or Catholic school, where they’d probably get a better education than your secular state school anyway).

The arguments in favour of the bill? “It will save lives”. The British Medical Association praised the bill, also praising how Wales was “leading” the UK on the ban on smoking in public places years ago. The only thing the Welsh Assembly is leading is the march towards statism (and given the competition that’s an impressive feat).

It will save lives.” When that is the strongest moral justification for the monstrous violation of an individual’s sovereign claim to his own life and property, things will only get worse. I was going to make a rather macabre list of all the people who could be sacrificed if the end goal was simply to save more lives, but I won’t. I’ll leave it to you to think through the implications of this line of reasoning.

This little fiasco is, for me, a perfect example of the socialist mindset in action: erode the notion of genuine acts of kindness and compassion between human beings by assuming that such actions are a duty, not a free gift. Therefore, undermine the only genuine basis for human compassion (free will) by making charity a penance to be exacted for the sin of not giving enough.

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you you’re living in a democracy. Did you give the State the power to lay claim over your body? Probably not. Even if you did, does any government have the moral right to take such a power even if it were offered up? Even if it could, do you have the right to claim the body and organs of another, using the government as your proxy? Does anyone group, no matter how large, have such a right? Does the number of people who claim your body change the fact that it is yours, your property, and no one else’s? Does any group, gang, minister, assembly, or representative have the moral right to make such a claim?

Only if your life belongs to the State by default. Which means that, after thousands of years of recorded history, having resigned tribalism to primitive corners of the earth, after the feudalism and despotism of the Dark Ages, having survived the Pharaohs and the Emperors and the Lieges, having outgrown the Divine Right of Kings and slavery, having fought civil wars to establish constitutional republics, having written the Magna Carta and the Constitution of the United States, having fought at least one world war against fascism, after seeing “The People” of communism intentionally starve millions , and “The Father Land” of German slaughter millions in its quest for perfection, after bringing the Berlin wall down… in the year 2013, in Wales, if you do not explicitly declare your body to be your own property, the State needs must take it as it wills.

It’s said the Welsh Assembly is “leading the way”. The scary thing is, where there are leaders there are followers.


4 Responses to “In Soviet Wales, Organ Donates You!”

  1. The Vicar (via Wordpress) Says:

    I live over in America, land of the free, where the bags are given to you whether you want them or not. I wish, desperately, that grocery stores would start charging for bags, whether they donated the money to charity or not. Those things a terrible nuisance; they end up showing up everywhere outside. And they don’t recycle very well, either — if you put them in with ordinary #2 or #4 plastic, they burn instead of melting because the film is so thin. They have to be separated first.

    If the price of charging for bags is that a few disgruntled people whine because they actually believe that having to pay for a bag is equivalent to being in Soviet Russia, that’s fine with me. People who are that disagreeable and given to hyperbole will probably end up making nuisances of themselves anyway, might as well get it over with.

  2. evanescent Says:

    Cheers for taking the time to comment, Vicar. Unfortunately you didn’t say anything of interest or make any point, and you didn’t address any of the real issues I raised in my article, so I can’t understand why you did bother to comment. “Paying for a bag is equivalent to being in Soviet Russia”… hmm, I don’t recall saying that. What I do think *is* like living in Soviet Russia in the notion that the State can lay claim over your body. But of course, you didn’t see fit to address that point, did you? But hey, at least you raised awareness of the frustration that can occur from trying to separate shopping bags. And here I am whining about the slide into fascism! Pfft, I need to get my priorities right! Thank you for putting me back on the straight and narrow.

  3. The Vicar (via Wordpress) Says:

    Frankly, if you’re so wrong-headed as to complain about grocery stores charging for grocery bags — which you did, way up at the top of the article; I’d think that even the most moronic greed-head would accept that businesses have the right to pass along costs to customers if they so desire, and if they choose to donate that money to a charity instead of keeping it then that’s their business — then your stance on organ donation will almost certainly be short-sighted, stupid, and wrong, too.

    In short: I was trying to hint to you that, rather than forming an enticing lead-in to your main point, your introduction made you seem like an entitled nitwit. But I didn’t want to come out and actually SAY “you’re an entitled nitwit”. Your objections would be stupid coming from someone who thought human bodies were inhabited by souls; coming from someone who professes not to believe in them at all, you merely come off as a paranoid idiot with delusions of grandeur — the government isn’t “taking your life from you” if, by definition, you have to be dead before the organ donation happens. You are a moron on such a fundamental level that it’s astonishing you were able to write a post as long as this one, and your politics are so wrong-headed, so incredibly filled with bizarre claims, that I’m surprised you aren’t also campaigning against vaccination.

  4. evanescent Says:

    Vicar, it’s staggering how you so completely and utterly manage to overlook the actual points being made.

    if you’re so wrong-headed as to complain about grocery stores charging for grocery bags — which you did

    Bold mine.
    Which I didn’t. Read the article again. Use your finger to follow along if it helps. What I complained about was the government forcing stores to be their collection agencies.

    I’d think that even the most moronic greed-head would accept that businesses have the right to pass along costs to customers if they so desire

    Absolutely. However you appear to have commented on the wrong blog; I didn’t object to businesses charging whatever prices they wanted from their customers and then doing whatever they wanted with their own money. What I objected to on my blog, in the article above, in the one you don’t seem to have read, is that this is very different to the government FORCING private companies to charge money for bags, money which those companies don’t keep, money which the government then decides to pass onto “charity”. That is my objection. I think I made it incredibly obvious. I guess not, since you haven’t addressed that in either of your replies so far.

    In short: I was trying to hint to you that, rather than forming an enticing lead-in to your main point, your introduction made you seem like an entitled nitwit.

    However, since you completely misread my entire first few paragraphs and then insulted me for a silly position I never actually took, I’d feel pretty embarrassed if I were you.

    Your objections would be stupid coming from someone who thought human bodies were inhabited by souls

    You think that me objecting to the government making what amounts to a de factor claim over your body (after death), is stupid on my part? Really? Wow. Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. But if you’re perfectly ok with such blatantly fascism then I suggest it’s your politics that are incredibly wrong-headed.

    coming from someone who professes not to believe in them at all, you merely come off as a paranoid idiot with delusions of grandeur — the government isn’t “taking your life from you” if, by definition, you have to be dead before the organ donation happens.

    I’m not sure how taking a strong position on individual liberty makes you think I have delusions of grandeur, but hey, maybe God told you this?

    Funnily enough, the words you quoted didn’t sound like mine so I went back and did a word search. What do you know?! I didn’t actually say “taking your life from you” in my article at all. What is a fact, something that I don’t think anyone would argue, is that it’s YOUR decision what happens to your organs after you die. Which is, after all, why we even have to donor cards in the first place! At the very least the decision falls to your next of kin. But in either event, it’s one of those two people – and that’s because the decision after what happens to your organs after death is one you make in life. And that decision is respected by doctors, the State (usually) and usually your next of kin too. So far, so simple. But wait – if the government has declared that ALL citizens are automatically considered organ donors, that carries with it the explicit assumption that the government has the right to make such a decision over your body in the first place! Which is such an obvious overstepping of power I am stunned that the measure was ever passed, or that you can fail to see what my point is. And are you perfectly ok with this?

    Let me put this in even simpler terms: If I said to you “Vicar, I want a new TV, so I’m sending you an invoice for £1000.” Would your reply be:
    a)”ok, let me save up a few weeks”, or
    b)”and by what power or right do you presume to invoice me?”

    So, to recap: I object to fascism and give examples of such. Your first comment is meaningless and doesn’t appear to be in anyway related to the quite serious (IMO) issues I raise in the article. I call you on this fact, and you immediately start hurling insults, and attacking a position a didn’t take, and attempting to refute claims I never made, and citing quotes I never said. I’ve seen some staggering displays of offensive and embarrasingly thoughtless replies, but this is a new low, even for my blog. But hey, I might not believe in souls (because, you know, I live in the real world), but I do believe in giving people another chance. I wonder what the quality of your reply will be, if you make one, and what it will say about your character and ability to debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: