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.

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.

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.