I have my students write papers on the intersection of markets and some sticky ethical questions. Should parents be permitted to sell their babies? If you allow a market in kidneys, would it be permissible for a purchaser to use it as wall decoration or a lawn ornament? And so on.
Let’s be agnostic about all of these issues for the time being, I just wanted to illustrate a common argument made by students against legalizing the sale of various things like babies, body parts, and themselves (prostitution for example). Students argue that by allowing a market in these things it is exploitive not just because the poor cannot afford those things (that is a discussion for a different day), but because the poor are “forced” to sell these things (or at least there are more pressures on the poor to sell them than the non-poor).
What to make of such an argument? I think three or four points stand out.
I’d raise my hand and ask everybody what it means to be poor.
If you live in Bangladesh and just survived the last typhoon with only the clothes on your body, and are hungry with little prospect of living the next day, you are poor.
If you live in America and are down to your last nickel, you are not poor, and the poor in Bangladesh would gladly trade places with you.
Now, if you are not merely down to your last nickel, but are under water in your mortgage, you are in trouble, and selling your blood to the local blood bank will not do it. One option is to go to the library and use the computer to write your senator or congressman to pass legislation that will cancel your debt, give you free health care, and give you a stipend or a government job that does all three, plus give you free broadband internet access.
“Would it be good policy to render valueless anything of value that the poor own?”
This is the prevailing view, at least among our lords and masters. Then they will assure us all of sustenance and not force us into selling our extra kidney or prostituting ourselves.
I’m all for selling organs, with moderate safeguards, but your arguments are really lacking here. I’ll go through my thoughts on each of your points
1. This is really paradoxical. If your saying a black market allows for higher price, then keeping it illegal should be beneficial to the poor, and in fact give them more ‘options’. Conversely, if you think that legalizing helps the poor, you must maintain that the value to the poor is less in a black market than a free one.
2 is great example of Reductio ad absurdum. It’s a logical fallacy. just because you can propose an absurd extreme doesn’t bear on the choice before us.
3. It wouldn’t be taking the asset away, it would be making the asset illiquid, which is not the same thing. There are all sorts of reasons you might want to freeze the asset of individuals at least temporarily. Pyramid schemes and other cons are a perfect examples. All pretty much rely on asymmetric information, which could form a perfectly valid argument for preventing organ sales.
4. This is actually pretty good for that specific argument, but I feel like it’s mostly a straw man argument. Perhaps your kids do actually come up with this one, but it’s not argument I would choose.
I’d say the biggest barrier to efficient and moral organ markets is the idea of asymmetric information I brought up in point 3. Even just for efficiency, and efficient pricing, you need a fairly high level of good symmetric information.
Morally, a lie by omission is still a lie, and we would not abide exchanges where a party directly lied about the exchange. I think it’s reasonable to assume that this is an area where the poor could easily get some bad information about the long term effects of organ donation. Then it comes down to if you think you can ameliorate that lack of information in the poor (and even really, anyone who isn’t a doctor or has lived with someone with a single kidney). I think that you probably can fix the major issues with some decent counselling services (which would be the bulk of the ‘moderate safeguards’ I alluded to), but I’d be at least willing to hear an argument that the gap couldn’t ever be made up.
Kevin, I think you’re off base with your point by point criticisms
1. The overarching argument that the post is addressing is that it is immoral to legalize the sale of kidneys because it exploits the poor. The act of creating the legal market will harm the poor. However, by reminding us that there is already an even more lucrative return to donating a kidney on the black market, legalizing kidney sales will actually reduce the financial incentive to give up a kidney.
2. Again, the proposition being tested is that the poor would be exploited by the legalization of kidney sales, and thus be made worse off. Kevin, by asserting that it’s a reductio ad absurdum, you concede that the proposal to simply limit sales to those with high incomes is a bad outcome because it is unfair to the poor. Thus, you also implicitly concede that there is no exploitation by legalizing kidney sales.
3. Why do kidney sales necessarily entail asymmetric information? It is impossible for a kidney seller to understand the risks of his decision?
4. I wasn’t a big fan of the 4th argument either.
When a student argues that the poor are being forced to sell, this often seems to be a language struggle. The problem isn’t with the sale of goods, but rather the leveraging of inelastic demands by one side over another to compel the exchange. A person dying of thirst will gladly sell their kidneys for a glass of water, and yes, banning the sale of their kidneys and forcing them to simply die of thirst is a worse option, but the student’s issue is with the monopolization of water, not with the sale of kidneys; it is a round-about way of offering “your kidneys or your life”, putting it in the same category as being mugged at gunpoint for one’s organs, simply disguised as a free-enterprise exchange.
When a poor person is forced to sell a prized possession to avoid eviction, they are really selling it to avoid freezing to death in the snow; they have run up against an inelastic demand, that for shelter. The complaint is thus not against them having the opportunity to sell, but against a system that would make it illegal for a robber to come into their house, claim it as their own, and threaten to kill the tenant unless they regularly give the robber something of value, but which is perfectly fine with someone using right of property to force an equivalent situation onto the landless poor.
lqepdr
snadmv
ibmuiy
b95144