Distribution > Human Life?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I must have written my OP rather poorly. I wasn't intending the thread to be a discussion about the legality of organ selling (although there have been some very interesting posts on it that I very much enjoyed reading). I was more interested in people's thoughts on the more abstract (liberal?) notion that a 'just' distribution can be worth more to a society than a distribution that helps a greater number of people.

I mostly wanted to know if this position is common and simply not often articulated or if my friend just happens to be an outlier. I think the thread has given a bit of anecdotal evidence on this question and I'm leaning towards it being a fairly common view, which completely baffles me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why it baffles you that people hold this view, because I think it is held most strongly by market conservatives/ libertarians/ACists. They believe that a "just" distribution is one that upholds property rights and minimizes coercion, and that such a distribution is worth more to a society than a distribution that helps a greater number of people.

I would say liberals tend to be more utilitarian, although they are probably closer to the John Rawls vision of utilitarianism than the classical one. I don't think anyone believes that we should be solely helping "the greatest number" of people without regard to the magnitude of individual help and harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is absolute garbage. the underlying thesis is that a laissez-faire society is not only just, it also maxmizes welfare (if externalities are internalized, which mainstream Austrians/libertarians support)

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't know why it baffles you that people hold this view, because I think it is held most strongly by market conservatives/ libertarians/ACists. They believe that a "just" distribution is one that upholds property rights and minimizes coercion, and that such a distribution is worth more to a society than a distribution that helps a greater number of people.

I would say liberals tend to be more utilitarian, although they are probably closer to the John Rawls vision of utilitarianism than the classical one. I don't think anyone believes that we should be solely helping "the greatest number" of people without regard to the magnitude of individual help and harm.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is absolute garbage. the underlying thesis is that a laissez-faire society is not only just, it also maxmizes welfare (if externalities are internalized, which mainstream Austrians/libertarians support)

[/ QUOTE ]

From everything I've read, it does indeed seem to me that libertarians and ACists hold property rights and freedom from coercion above utilitarian outcomes. Under the Austrian economic vision, the only "just" transactions are those freely made by parties with property rights over the items being transacted. This is anti-utilitarian in two ways:

1.) It forbids transactions where one party with a property right in the transaction would be made worse off, but many people would be made better off.

2.) It permits transactions where people without property right in the transaction are unwillingly made worse off.

I understand that Austrian economics makes some allowance for externalities, but it still only does so within the constraints of property right. If someone does something that indirectly damages my property, the externality must be internalized. But if someone does something that causes me psychic damage, I have no recourse and no right to object to the transaction.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

1.) It forbids transactions where one party with a property right in the transaction would be made worse off, but many people would be made better off.


[/ QUOTE ]
the argument is that these transactions either, don't exist and/or don't maximize welfare in the long run.

if you would suggest a concrete example i could explain further.

[ QUOTE ]

2.) It permits transactions where people without property right in the transaction are unwillingly made worse off.


[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't allowed/doesn't exist, unless in some weird situations, ie A's utility increases strictly because B's utility decreases. (A hates B when she is happy)

unless i am missing something... an example would help here as well.

[Albert Moulton]

MAN:
What's this, then? Mmh.

MR. BROWN:
A liver donor's card.

MAN:
Need we say more?

ERIC:
No!

MR. BROWN:
Listen! I can't give it to you now. It says, 'in the event of death'. Uh. Oh! Ah. Ah. Eh.

MAN:
No one who has ever had their liver taken out by us has survived.

MR. BROWN:
Agh.

ERIC:
Just lie there, sir. It won't take a minute.

MR. BROWN:
[screaming]

full scene from The Meaning of Life

As funny as this is, I think creating a free and open market for humans to buy and sell organs would end up with a proliferation of scenes not too dissimilar to this one - especially as poor people who need a transplant, know that rich people can buy them, and then resort to violence to obtain the organs and/or the money.

I think the greatest problem with this would be the enormous resentment that poor, sick people would have. This kind of in your face, life and death inequity would be the stuff that riots and class revolutions are made of. Let them eat cake! Or maybe just a liver.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
As funny as this is, I think creating a free and open market for humans to buy and sell organs would end up with a proliferation of scenes not too dissimilar to this one - especially as poor people who need a transplant, know that rich people can buy them, and then resort to violence to obtain the organs and/or the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying that we shouldn't allow Ferrari to make Enzos because their high value would cause poor people to run around stealing them.

What do you think is going to happen to a poor person who shows up at a hospital red-handed with a full, severed adult liver in his grasp to make a sale?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As funny as this is, I think creating a free and open market for humans to buy and sell organs would end up with a proliferation of scenes not too dissimilar to this one - especially as poor people who need a transplant, know that rich people can buy them, and then resort to violence to obtain the organs and/or the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying that we shouldn't allow Ferrari to make Enzos because their high value would cause poor people to run around stealing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's even worse, because he's assuming the valuation of these organs will remain at their astronomical black-market levels. In fact, the scenario he proposes is MORE likely under the status quo, since the prices are so inflated and there are still rich people who can and will buy the organs.

[Max Raker]

Maybe OPs friend was worried about Bill Gates developing a taste for human organs and buying them all?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


This is like saying that we shouldn't allow Ferrari to make Enzos because their high value would cause poor people to run around stealing them.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you truly think Ferraris can be used as an example when we're discussing human organs?

Is everything a commodity?

Is nothing sacred?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think is going to happen to a poor person who shows up at a hospital red-handed with a full, severed adult liver in his grasp to make a sale?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how it would happen. The "legitimate" supply lines would simply swell, somewhat at first and then, in certain parts of the world, to significant volume, with organs from "patients" who "died" in a generous mood.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you think is going to happen to a poor person who shows up at a hospital red-handed with a full, severed adult liver in his grasp to make a sale?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how it would happen. The "legitimate" supply lines would simply swell, somewhat at first and then, in certain parts of the world, to significant volume, with organs from "patients" who "died" in a generous mood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its annoying that you are refusing to see logic. As others have already told you:
A) there is a market for organs today in which no one cares where the organs came from.
B) These organs are worth waaaaaaaay more in the black market today than they would be if selling them were legal
C) Anyone who would wait for organ sale to be legalized to steal organs is an idiot - they would be losing out on a ton of money by not doing it today!
D) Open air organ sale would have observers who would be able to out the organ theives and land them in jail for murder etc.

In short, your theory is horribly unfounded. Anyone who would risk stealing organs in a legal market would be facing a higher chance of getting caught, and a lower payoff if they get away with it.

Clearly anyone who would steal organs in a free market is ALREADY going to steal them, and most likely would not support the sale of organs becoming legal. Do you think Pablo Escobar would ever want cocaine to be legal in the US? Hell no.