Organ Market

[d0zer]

I'm unsure of what you're getting at because it sounds like you're saying two different things by claiming that legalizing behavior that is currently in a black market would lower prices yet that wouldn't deter coercion.

I have nuanced opinions that sometimes sound contradictory, but I'm just musing on the various and sometimes opposing factors here. I forgot this is the internet and I'm supposed to take a side and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

The thing about supply & demand with the organ black market, is that market is castrated by virtual worldwide illegality. Legalize it worldwide (or even in a large market) and that demand skyrockets.

Reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_t...al_organ_trade provides many examples of problems with countries that tried legalizing it. India tried it and eventually decided it wasn't a good idea. And you're welcome to pull the theoretical libertarian cliche of "the government isn't good at anything" if you must, but...results indicate:

Research shows a 25-30% increase in the amount of available organs in opt-out countries

[wufwugy]

I have nuanced opinions that sometimes sound contradictory, but I'm just musing on the various and sometimes opposing factors here. I forgot this is the internet and I'm supposed to take a side and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

The thing about supply & demand with the organ black market, is that market is castrated by virtual worldwide illegality. Legalize it worldwide (or even in a large market) and that demand skyrockets.

Reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_t...al_organ_trade provides many examples of problems with countries that tried legalizing it. India tried it and eventually decided it wasn't a good idea. And you're welcome to pull the theoretical libertarian cliche of "the government isn't good at anything" if you must, but...results indicate:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Of course there are going to be problems with those sorts of systems. When it's legal in one place but nowhere else, it's still not much different than a black market, with high prices and tourism. If something as simply awful as allowing people to sell organs that they cannot adequately demonstrate they own is allowed, it will cause all sorts of problems.

In your link, if any country is the best example of an experiment, it's Iran, because it looks like the only one that used policy that pulled it out of black market territory. This claim is funny

It has been argued that the Iranian system is in some ways coercive, as over 70% of donors are considered poor by Iranian standards

That's half the point. That's not coercion of the poor. That's allowing poor people to become less poor through choice.


I think part of what you're arguing against is the idea of pro-coercion. Nobody supports making policy that legalizes or promotes theft of kidneys. In a free market system, it is still majorly illegal to sell something you don't have the rights to. There are a million things that capitalism has extracted from what used to be coercive markets and turned into markets of totally free choice. What is it about current black market products that stop the same?

[d0zer]

What is it about current black market products that stop the same?

Well first of all, I've never been talking about coercion of the poor in the sense that they choose to sell their kidney to pay for their kid's education or something like that, so let's drop that strawman. I've always been talking about modern day slavery in the form of debt bondage.

A unique factor with the organ issue vs say drug prohibition or prostitution is that you're dependent on doctors to use these organs. Highly trained, educated doctors with a lot more to lose than your average pimp or drug dealer. This makes prohibition in this market more effective, basically shutting off the big supply of money that would come (largely) from the western world if the floodgates were opened.

[wufwugy]

Well first of all, I've never been talking about coercion of the poor in the sense that they choose to sell their kidney to pay for their kid's education or something like that, so let's drop that strawman. I've always been talking about modern day slavery in the form of debt bondage.

Debt bondage exists mainly (perhaps entirely) through government endorsement. Everything from historical American plantation slavery to current Saudi Arabian debt slavery are dependent on protections of the slave owners by their governments. Without the backing of government legal institutions and security forces, owners of debt bondage do not have the capital to enforce cooperation. Consider the Saudi example, where Bangladeshi laborers are engulfed in perpetual debt and have their passports confiscated. At first glance it may seem like their controllers are the private owners of the debt, but it is only through the government stopping the Bangladeshis' potential resolutions that the system persists. For example, fleeing is possible. They can pretty much all flee from the physical location of bondage and from the clutches of their masters. Except for one caveat: the government stops them from getting far through various "security" measures. So then fleeing isn't possible, and it's the government that has created perpetual debt bondage. The private interests on the matter are cunts, but again, if the government offers a $100 to anybody who punches somebody for wearing blue, the industry will be created. That scenario sounds ridiculous to us, but it's not, because we have ample examples of equally ridiculous things like imprisoning people for smoking a joint

[d0zer]

Debt bondage exists mainly (perhaps entirely) through government endorsement. Everything from historical American plantation slavery to current Saudi Arabian debt slavery are dependent on protections of the slave owners by their governments.

I agree. There have been and continue to be cunty governments. But debt bondage is more prevalent in some countries with governments than it is others, maybe because some governments suck more than others? To pretend that debt bondage only exists because of government is ridiculous though. It exists more easily when governments are extremely corrupt and easily purchased but when you consider lower rates of debt bondage in countries with more "mature" governments I don't know how you can pretend that this validates the notion that government in inherently bad.

You start to sound like a wingnut when you boil every every single problem down to the existence of government. Not to undermine the influence government has, but issues are more multi-faceted than simple government influence.

[wufwugy]

I agree. There have been and continue to be cunty governments. But debt bondage is more prevalent in some countries with governments than it is others, maybe because some governments suck more than others? To pretend that debt bondage only exists because of government is ridiculous though. It exists more easily when governments are extremely corrupt and easily purchased but when you consider lower rates of debt bondage in countries with more "mature" governments I don't know how you can pretend that this validates the notion that government in inherently bad.

You start to sound like a wingnut when you boil every every single problem down to the existence of government. Not to undermine the influence government has, but issues are more multi-faceted than simple government influence.

I have discovered it's a very difficult subject to discuss without sounding "like a wingnut". I mean, I have stated several times that I'm very pro-government enforcement of non-coercion policy. I'm not so much "anti-government" as I'm "anti-government of coercion". While there is merit to the idea of private industry using insurance systems to fully replace government, the overwhelming majority of libertarians support governments that enforce private property, privacy, and safety against non-consensual harm. This means that a libertarian government is one with a constitution that does not allow the justice system to prosecute drug users yet requires it to prosecute murderers and thieves and other coercive criminals

I think we view what made democratic revolutions and what began with the US Constitution wrongly. We tend to say "they grant more rights to citizens, that's why they're great", but then we stop thinking about it. Well, ask yourself what those rights are by way of government intervention, and you'll find that they are nothing other than laws that make it illegal for the government to do certain things. Speech rights, religious rights, privacy rights, etc, are all simply just materialization of the government not being allowed to intervene. Libertarianism is about furthering this. If it gives me an anti-government label, then fine. Just acknowledge that everything we currently take for granted as a progression of society has come by the hand of making it illegal for the government to do things. I'd like to make even more things illegal for the government to do. I mean, didn't it work out so freaking well the first time? Just a handful of basic things that the government cannot do is what makes us so free compared to pre-democratic revolutions societies

Within framework of government intervention into economies and social lives, there certainly are good and bad. But it isn't a coincidence that the good is when government enhance the ability for its citizens to choose more freely. Take education for example. I think a European style voucher system would work much better than the US system. I also think an amendment that makes it illegal for the government to be involved whatsoever would work better than our current system. Granted, as for a policy measure, I support the former more than the latter. Part of that is my own sheepishness though. An amendment that made it illegal for government intervention into education would probably result in a system that blows the socks off anything yet imagined, but it's a scary idea.