For Sale: One Baby, Hardly Used, Excellent Condition

[Borodog]

This got little response in the other thread, possibly because people might have thought I was kidding. I assure you, I am not.

If women were allowed to sell their babies to the highest bidder on a legal baby market there would be fewer abortions, more happy infertile couples, and fewer women stuck in poverty. As it is many would-be adopters must go to foreign countries to adopt, due to the high barriers to adoption in the United States (where perverse government incentives ensure that childcare bureaucracies receive funding for children they keep in foster care but not for children that are adopted).

Discuss.

[hmkpoker]

I have no problem with that.

[tolbiny]

as long as the governemtnt is fully in control and supervises all aspects of the transaction i have no problem with it as the government can do no wrong.

[Borodog]

Nice try, but I refuse to take the bait.

[soon2bepro]

The problem is that you're putting a price on the baby's life. Even if you somehow control that his/her life is not in danger, you're still giving him/her a life that is not based purely on his/her best interest (as normal adoption ought to be), but also in who pays most.

Think about it; you have 2 couples and 1 baby. couple nº1 scores 99 out of 100 for the babies' care, but only offers $5000 on his/her life. couple nº2 scores 75 out of 100 (minimum is 60), but they bid $50k.

Obviously people who don't care for the baby will take couple nº2's offer, giving him/her a worse life to the best bidder.

[Borodog]

The couple that offers the highest price values the baby the most, and will likely take care of it the best. After all, it will represent a sizable investment. They probably also have the greater means to take care of the child's health and education.

[soon2bepro]

Ridiculous statement. Simply because they have more money (and are therefore willing to pay more) doesn't mean the baby's best interests will be fulfilled better. There's more to life than just money, money is just the way to pay for things. Babies need love, comprehension and education. (besides various types of cares that will not necessarily be better fulfilled just because a couple has more money)

[Borodog]

Nor does having less money mean the baby's best interests will be fullfilled better. There is more to life than money, but money can buy a secure home, clothing, better food, healthcare, and education. All of which are much more highly correlated with a child's social and academic success than nebulous measures of love.

Is it not the case that socioeconomic status is highly correlated with a child's opportunities? Doesn't the child deserve the best opportunities he can get? Why do you hate children?

[slickpoppa]

I think you are on to something, but there needs to be some kind of oversight. Your assumption that whoever is willing to pay the most for the child will likely take the best care of them is unfounded. Millions of girls in the third world are sold into sexual slavery on the free market. Is that in their best interests?

[Borodog]

Millions? I'd like to see the numbers. My understanding is that sexual slavery is rampant because prostitution is illegal in most places, creating a huge black market demand. However, that may not be the whole picture.

[MathEconomist]

We can't get rid of all the babies we have now when we're giving them away for free, why would demand be higher when we are charging people for them? I don't particularly mind this idea THAT much since I think it will produce fewer negative externalities than having a market in many currently non-market sectors, but you're not going to be able to sustain a price high enough to prevent abortions. There are simply too many people who would be quite willing to enter this market intentionally and that would drive the price down to around the cost of delivery. (Of course these people entering this market might or might not be better than what they're currently doing.)

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't get rid of all the babies we have now when we're giving them away for free,

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally know several people who have travelled overseas to adopt children because they can't in the United States. I know of several celebrities who have done the same, so it's a pretty well known phenomenon.

[ QUOTE ]
why would demand be higher when we are charging people for them? I don't particularly mind this idea THAT much since I think it will produce fewer negative externalities than having a market in many currently non-market sectors, but you're not going to be able to sustain a price high enough to prevent abortions. There are simply too many people who would be quite willing to enter this market intentionally and that would drive the price down to around the cost of delivery.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the price went completely to delivery costs, there would be no incentive to enter the market.

[dustybottoms]

[ QUOTE ]
Millions? I'd like to see the numbers. My understanding is that sexual slavery is rampant because prostitution is illegal in most places, creating a huge black market demand. However, that may not be the whole picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually is in the millions. It was hard to tell, as they were all sold to Gary Glitter.

[MathEconomist]

This is true, but if price exists higher than delivery costs, there is an incentive enter the market and people with very poor outside options will do so (one look at any major city either inside or outside the US should convince you that there are many such women). Their entrance in the market will drive down the price. This will likely continue until price resides somewhere slightly above delivery costs.

[slickpoppa]

Whatever the number is, it is high. The important point is that your assumption about the highest payer being in the best interest of the child is wrong.

[Cowboy21]

My fear on this issue is that this may turn some children into pets, especially with the "in" crowd. Several questions should be asked, starting with: Why do you want to buy a baby? If the answer is "We've been trying for 10 years and have had no luck" that's one thing, however, if the woman says to me "I don't want to lose my figure" I'd kindly show her and her $50,000 to the door. And can you prove to me that just because someone has money they'll spend it on the baby? How can we be sure that the woman may not have seen the episode of "Friends" where someone has a baby, and decides that's for her, then six months later, she decides it's not what she wants, and just like that, we've turned a human into a pet. As far as your assumption that the $50,000 bidder will care more for the baby than the $5,000 bidder, I'd want to see income levels. If $50,000 was around .5% of that bidders net worth, and $5,000 was 75% of the other couples net worth, I'd give the baby to the $5,000 couple.

JJ

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true, but if price exists higher than delivery costs, there is an incentive enter the market and people with very poor outside options will do so (one look at any major city either inside or outside the US should convince you that there are many such women). Their entrance in the market will drive down the price. This will likely continue until price resides somewhere slightly above delivery costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A pregnant woman who does not want the child must make the decision to abort the pregnancy or carry the child to term and put it on the market something like six months in advance. It is highly unlikely that anyone would choose to carry the child to term for a fee slightly above the cost of delivery (this only refers to women considering abortion; women who are morally opposed to abortion will carry to term regardless of the market price). If the market clearing price were so low, abortion would be greatly incentivised and the number of babies available on the market would drop precipitously, driving the price up.

In the end, if there are more unwanted pregnancies that could either go to abortion or the market than there are people who want to adopt, the price would be low, but still would be significant (because of the aforementioned abortion incentive in the case of low prices). On the other hand, if there were more infertile couples wanting to adopt than there were unwanted pregnancies, the price could be very high. This might even incentivize women to intentionally get pregnant to enter the baby market. It could also, ironically, again incentivize outsourcing of adoption offshore.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the number is, it is high. The important point is that your assumption about the highest payer being in the best interest of the child is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that, in general, children of wealthier parents are not better off, in terms of healthcare, education, and other significant factors, than children of poorer parents? Do they not have better opportunities, in general? Does the child not deserve the best chance possible in life?

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]


If women were allowed to sell their babies to the highest bidder on a legal baby market there would be

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see a problem with treating people as goods or chattels to be sold. Do you?

A similar system for adults would surely solve various problems in the labour market.
/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[JackWhite]

Borodog, how about this question: should a woman/couple be allowed to sell older children? If a couple has a 7 year-old girl who they no longer want, should they be able to put her on the open market to the highest bidder?

[Borodog]

I'll have to think about it.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you hate children?

[/ QUOTE ] You crack me up, Borodog!

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, how about this question: should a woman/couple be allowed to sell older children? If a couple has a 7 year-old girl who they no longer want, should they be able to put her on the open market to the highest bidder?

[/ QUOTE ]

We know the demand for 7 y-o girls would be huge, if you know what I mean /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SkinnyPuppy]

this was an interesting post. but for me it seems to raise many moral questions that you have all been discussing. if it wernt for the "moral" aspect of it all i think it wouldnt be a half bad idea for women to sell their babies,
whats the harm in that? make a little money for their trouble and get rid of a unwanted baby without killing it, and who knows, it might end up with a half decent life. i really fail to see too much negative in selling kids except for the religious people that get in a uproar about the littlest things that they feel the need to control. but i guess we could just have abortions if that weren't the case. sorry for babbling

[Marko Schmarko]

I think it's pretty clear that while more affluent families are more likely to be able to provide opportunities for their children, but in this situation, many would not. This market could very easily present a situation in which people were buying babies for personal gain, exploiting them, neglecting them, and having little emotional attachment.

Part of the rationale behind the current abortion system is that the more difficult it is to adopt a baby, the more dedicated one must be to pursue such an option, and the more attachment one will have afterwards. The effort and the prerequisite drive compound one another to ensure at least some level of attachment.

[ QUOTE ]
After all, it will represent a sizable investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I'm sure you're aware, this is a very relative statement. To a very rich man, no market could produce a situation in which the investment would be sufficiently large as to be a hindrance—hardly even a nuisance.

This would present a situation in which children could be collected at virtually no expense in enormous quantities. I think one must make some very optimistic assumptions about human nature to justify this sort of freedom.

And, lastly... and probably leastly, can you imagine being told that you were 'bought' as a small child? This stigma might devolve with time, but certainly initially, it would be catastrophic to one's self esteem. Admittedly, the difference between this and adoption would quickly approach 0.

[soon2bepro]

I think "babies factory" would be a funny thing to hear. Soon babies wouldn't be born but grown (matrix anyone? /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

This idea is clearly wrong.

[pokerjoker]

worst idea ever.

Every piece of trash in the US will start pumping out kids every 9 months. this might be the single worst law the US could ever impose.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]


Every piece of trash in the US will start pumping out kids every 9 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

"will start" ?

[Apocalypso]

I was under the (apparent mis)conception that underlying libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the idea of human liberty - selling someone without their consent seems to conflict with this. A baby selling themselves would be fine.

I might be wrong/misinformed about this though.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
worst idea ever.

Every piece of trash in the US will start pumping out kids every 9 months. this might be the single worst law the US could ever impose.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The price goes way down if the market is flooded.

2) Given #1, I don't think that it would be worth the 9 months of pregnancy (medical bills, pain, extra food, all of the other stuff...) to do this.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the (apparent mis)conception that underlying libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the idea of human liberty - selling someone without their consent seems to conflict with this. A baby selling themselves would be fine.

I might be wrong/misinformed about this though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person isn't buying the child. They are buying the right to parent that child.

[Borodog]

Excellent point, Don. I think therein lies the answer to the question about the 7 year old girl.

[jthegreat]

So are we just totally ignoring human biology and psychology or what?

The idea merits examination. It also merits a quick "no" as an answer.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
So are we just totally ignoring human biology and psychology or what?

The idea merits examination. It also merits a quick "no" as an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elaborate.

[jthegreat]

There are strong biological and psychological reasons why we value family so much. Material comforts are well and good, but they don't contribute to a person's maturity and well-being nearly as much as how they were reared. Rich people rear [censored]-ups just as often as poor people do. It's just easier for the rich [censored]-ups to get jobs.

The fact that adopted children so often seek out their biological parents should be enough to make you realize that selling children at auction is a bad idea. Yes, it may certainly reduce the number of abortions, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea overall.

It's just another example of the local AC'ers ignoring human nature.

[Borodog]

All your arguments apply to adoption in general. Should all adoption be stopped?

And the post has absolutely zero to do with anarchocapitalism. Give it a rest.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
All your arguments apply to adoption in general. Should all adoption be stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our adoption system is significantly different than simply purchasing a child, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread. Therefore, the arguments don't apply.

[ QUOTE ]
And the post has absolutely zero to do with anarchocapitalism. Give it a rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have a *lot* to do with it, but certainly more than zero. After all, you're proposing a free market, non-government-interference system to replace our current adoption system.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All your arguments apply to adoption in general. Should all adoption be stopped?

[/ QUOTE ]

Our adoption system is significantly different than simply purchasing a child, for reasons that have already been explained in this thread. Therefore, the arguments don't apply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your specific arguments apply equally well to adoption. So I reiterate, should adoption be stopped? If your objections are not sufficient to argue against the current adoption process, how can they be sufficient to argue against a market solution?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the post has absolutely zero to do with anarchocapitalism. Give it a rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have a *lot* to do with it, but certainly more than zero. After all, you're proposing a free market, non-government-interference system to replace our current adoption system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So proposing any free market solutions at all is "anarchy"?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Your specific arguments apply equally well to adoption. So I reiterate, should adoption be stopped? If your objections are not sufficient to argue against the current adoption process, how can they be sufficient to argue against a market solution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then let me add to my objections the fact that the more caring and loving an adopting parent is, the less harmful the situation is to the adopted child. Therefore, the ideal system would encourage children to stay with their biological parents as much as possible, and if it weren't, to place them in the most caring and loving environment possible.

There, now it doesn't apply to adoption.

[ QUOTE ]
So proposing any free market solutions at all is "anarchy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's capitalistic, which is half of "anarcho-capitalism".

Are you pretending to be dense on purpose or is it not an act?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your specific arguments apply equally well to adoption. So I reiterate, should adoption be stopped? If your objections are not sufficient to argue against the current adoption process, how can they be sufficient to argue against a market solution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then let me add to my objections the fact that the more caring and loving an adopting parent is, the less harmful the situation is to the adopted child. Therefore, the ideal system would encourage children to stay with their biological parents as much as possible, and if it weren't, to place them in the most caring and loving environment possible.

There, now it doesn't apply to adoption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, that's a completely different objection, so your original arguments still apply to adoption just as much as a market solution. And in fact your new objection doesn't even address the OP. The OP proposed that a market solution would result in fewer abortions, more happy infertile couples, and fewer women in poverty. So it's not really an objection at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So proposing any free market solutions at all is "anarchy"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's capitalistic, which is half of "anarcho-capitalism".

Are you pretending to be dense on purpose or is it not an act?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Not everything is about your personal jihad for the State. I say again, get over it.

[kingofmirrors]

Might you call this A Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html)?

Edit: link

[Dominic]

the only problem with this is that a lot of poor women would start getting pregnant with the specific intent on selling the child.

[Marko Schmarko]

lol, 'the only problem' indeed.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
the only problem with this is that a lot of poor women would start getting pregnant with the specific intent on selling the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now a child goes for roughly $15k (anywhere from 10k-20k; from various sources I got by googling it) on the highly inefficient black market. The price would be a fraction of this of the sale of parenthood were made legal (think of how little drugs would cost if they were made legal). I highly doubt this would be a viable option for supporting one's self, given that you could do it once ever three-quarters of a year.