Distribution > Human Life?

[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 ]
All those wonderful advances in medical technology that you were lauding because they make so many people's lives better… those probably were researched and developed and marketed out of the goodness of people's hearts right?

[/ QUOTE ] No -- out of greed.

Greed is what drove Robert Koch, Charles Laveran, Jules Bordet, George "Pap" Papanikolaou, Louis Pasteur and scores of other profit-minded individuals. You are right.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that an incredibly disproportionate amount of said progress was produced by the 1st world country that most closely approximates a free market is simply a coincidence, right?

[/ QUOTE ]I'd be interested to see on what kind of data this argument is based on.

I concede that the U.S. is the world's forerunner in the field of new drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's go ahead and socialize our medical industry and see what happens, no matter who's right about this issue doing so would certainly yield interesting and important data.

[/ QUOTE ]One minute hard-line capitalism advocates whine and moan that there is no "true capitalism" anywhere really; the next minute, they ask people to examine the evidence everywhere around us of capitalism triumphant!

Confusion enough to call my doctor. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Mickey Brausch

[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.

[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.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Malpractice.
The Hippocratic Oath.
Courts.
Law.
The fact that doctors are doctors because - get this - they want to help people.
The fact that if doctors would kill people for their organs, they would do so now, because organs are much more expensive under prohibition and black market buyers don't care about the legality of goods purchased.

Think about these things.


[/ QUOTE ]We have not yet gone down the road towards total absence of moral considerations in medical practice. But we have strayed very far from a world where the Hippocratic Oath takes precedent over material criteria. A doctor who has one eye at the bottom line and one eye at the heartbeat line, so to speak, is not a doctor who adhers to that oath.

You're invoking the fact that the doctors are not "killing people for their organs" but, while this is generally true (you'd be horrified with some cases), they still cause more deaths or worsening of patients' conditions than if proper medical care was provided. In other words, more people should be enjoying better health care with the advance of medical science than they are. (I'm certainly not disputing the advances of medical science. Quite the contrary.) And the most important thing medical doctors who take the Oath should know, i.e. leave well enough alone, is more often than not ignored in favor of busybody medicine, bottom-line-fattening medicine, market-driven medicine.

Capitalism and medical science. What a scandalous couple.

Mickey Brausch

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahah! Source?
natedogg

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All those wonderful advances in medical technology that you were lauding because they make so many people's lives better… those probably were researched and developed and marketed out of the goodness of people's hearts right?

[/ QUOTE ] No -- out of greed.

Greed is what drove Robert Koch, Charles Laveran, Jules Bordet, George "Pap" Papanikolaou, Louis Pasteur and scores of other profit-minded individuals. You are right.

[/ QUOTE ]

To connect this to another thread, in this case we can see that IP protection is NOT a necessary condition for innovation. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[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.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'm not going to dispute that some libertarians/ACists believe that their system maximizes welfare. I could argue that their system doesn't maximize welfare, but I'm not going to try to deny the sincerity of the belief. I concede that some ACist/libertarians hold their beliefs on utilitarian grounds.

Whatever examples I came up with, I'm sure you could come up with arguments to counter them. And the correctness of those arguments wouldn't really matter, you would be proving your point just by making them.

But it is still my impression that the beliefs of most ACists & libertarians are grounded in some form of natural rights, more so than most "liberal" philosophies. I don't think this claim is "absolute garbage" because some ACists may be utilitarians.