Mandatory Organ Donation

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:51 am UTC

kazvorpal wrote:The reason you are far more likely to die waiting for a kidney transplant than get one, even though 99% of Americans have an extra, is that organ donation has been socialized. It's illegal to sell a kidney, to be compensated for saving someone's life.

...

The solution, obviously, is to restore economic freedom to organ donation, NOT to impose even more tyranny.
...you don't see a potential legion of horror stories arising from assigning price tags to organs?

User avatar
Oflick
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:27 am UTC
Location: Sydney, California, France

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Oflick » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:16 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Oflick wrote:But someone praying doesn't affect anyone else. Not donating organs does.
The important word there is 'Not'. Should we mandate what I do with my property on account of me not really needing it? Do we determine property rights based on need, or based on legal possession?


Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you're saying. I get the impression your now speaking about whether you need something in the context of you being alive, is that correct? I think there's a difference between having stuff you don't need while alive, and having stuff you don't need when you die (which is pretty much everything).

The Great Hippo wrote:
Oflick wrote:I would argue that's not necessarily the same situation. If a rich man died and his will said that his money would be "buried with him", then no I would not support something like that. If it were actually going to next of kin or at least to someone it wouldn't bother me. The problem I have is something potentially useful being wasted because someone wants to own it even after their death.
Is it really that different?

Everything is potentially useful. The clothes we put the guy in--we could use those to clothe people who desperately need it. The coffin we bury him in--Jesus Christ, how many resources do we pour into an object no one's going to ever see again? That serves a completely meaningless function (to preserve a corpse for a tiny speck of time)? Couldn't we use all that time and money to feed some starving orphans or something?


I agree, it serves a completely meaningless function, so I also am not a fan of cemeteries, coffins, burying people with clothes, etc. I think here you were trying to say "Well, if you think X, then you must think Y", though I'm perfectly happy to admit I agree with what you've said.

Hell, I think cremation is also a bit of a waste, but I'd get cremated only if I can't donate my body anywhere (My Grandfather spent quite a while trying to get his body donated - they have high standards or something).

And when you leave money in your will--we could always find a better use for it. Maybe your kids are spoiled brats who are already independently rich; they plan on burning all the money on shoes. Oops; all that money's wasted. Or maybe you donated it to a charity that turns out to be running a huge multi-million dollar scam. Oops; all that money's wasted.

Your reasoning seems to be that we're being too sentimental about what happens to our organs, and there are greater needs to be served. But there are always greater needs to be served. We respect the wishes of the dead concerning what we do with their property because we respect contracts, and we respect property rights, even after you are dead. We do not stop respecting these things on account of need. The world is full of need; if we stopped respecting institutions in response to need, there would be no institutions left to respect except for need.


I think once again you're comparing the dead to the living. Sure, we can respect contracts, but if a party to a contract dies, the contract usually is terminated (of course laws vary between jurisdictions). There is obviously a difference between forcing a living billionaire to give some of his money to charity and taking the organs from someone who is dead. We can all argue that no living person needs billions of dollars, but you would have to be crazy to think someone who is dead needs organs. At least a living person can use money, what use does a dead man have for his organs?

I also don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to base a fair bit of your argument on "Well, sure organ donation would save some lives, but it doesn't solve all these other problems, so what's the point?" Of course, you never said anything of the sort in those words, but I think it can be read into what you've said. Feel free to dispute that, though (EDIT: Because apparently you require my permission to dispute anything I say).

kazvorpal wrote:The reason you are far more likely to die waiting for a kidney transplant than get one, even though 99% of Americans have an extra, is that organ donation has been socialized. It's illegal to sell a kidney, to be compensated for saving someone's life.


Are you talking about people being paid to sign up as organ donors? Or are you referring to people who are alive offering to give someone one of their kidneys then and there? I thought you were referring to the later, but Azrael seems to be refuting the former (At least that's how I read it - no one would sell their heart if they intended to live).

If it is people who are alive offering to give organs they don't need, I agree in theory, but have my doubts that it would work. If it is being paid to become a donor, who pays? Hospitals, the Government? Or, someone who needs an organ pays someone and just hopes they die soon?

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Coyne » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:30 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:You dont get to choose what reasons are legitimate for other people


Websites choose for us all the time: They write a long boring "Terms of Use" and make [the undesirable choice] opt-out. It's done all the time, and is legally enforceable. "Your dear departed dad should have read the 'Terms of Use' and opted-out if he didn't want to donate his organs."
In all fairness...

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:39 am UTC

Oflick wrote:I agree, it serves a completely meaningless function, so I also am not a fan of cemeteries, coffins, burying people with clothes, etc. I think here you were trying to say "Well, if you think X, then you must think Y", though I'm perfectly happy to admit I agree with what you've said.
My point was that if you're going to mandate against my right to take my organs with me, you should also mandate against my right to be buried in a coffin, or in a graveyard, etc. Instead, on death, we should have all our organs surgically removed, then be dumped into acid vats where our bodies will be reduced to a nutritional meat-slurry used to fertilize crops. I wouldn't mind this, by the way, but I know people who would, and I value respecting their wishes.
Oflick wrote: Sure, we can respect contracts, but if a party to a contract dies, the contract usually is terminated (of course laws vary between jurisdictions).
Death might require the creation of a new contract (to change the names of those involved), but it doesn't necessarily mean a contract is concluded; leases don't magically disappear when the person paying dies. Someone else can inherit the lease and continue payment.

My argument is that wills are contracts; i.e., they are agreements concerning how my possessions are to be spent after my death. You talked about living billionaires, but what about dead billionaires? If you feel the state has better ideas about what to do with a dead man's organs, wouldn't you also feel that the state has better ideas about what to do with a dead man's money?

Something else that I haven't seen come up in this thread--what about the definition of 'dead'? There are stories (anecdotal, but documented) of doctors moving to harvest a 'dead' man's organs to save another life, only for the 'dead' man to recover before the procedure could be completed. Doesn't organ donorship come with certain life-and-death risks? Shouldn't I be allowed to decide for myself if I want to undergo those risks?

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Outchanter » Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:22 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:...you don't see a potential legion of horror stories arising from assigning price tags to organs?

To play devil's advocate, you can already assign price tags to dead people: life insurance. There are all kinds of potential problems with that - people murdering policy holders or the latter committing suicide - but there are regulations to handle that and life insurance policies remain very popular. Maybe people would be happier to part with their organs after (natural) death if they knew their families would benefit from the exchange in a monetary fashion.

Azrael wrote:In this case, a kidney might have a market-assessed value that is achievable for the everyday individual but the larger and less-frequently transplanted organs (i.e. heart) would surely pass beyond the economic means of most people.

If the supply went up, prices would drop...

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Xeio » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:52 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:
Azrael wrote:In this case, a kidney might have a market-assessed value that is achievable for the everyday individual but the larger and less-frequently transplanted organs (i.e. heart) would surely pass beyond the economic means of most people.
If the supply went up, prices would drop...
Exactly where are you getting all these extra hearts to increase supply? Because people can't exactly pawn theirs off...

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Zamfir » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:09 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:...you don't see a potential legion of horror stories arising from assigning price tags to organs?

To play devil's advocate, you can already assign price tags to dead people: life insurance. There are all kinds of potential problems with that - people murdering policy holders or the latter committing suicide - but there are regulations to handle that and life insurance policies remain very popular. Maybe people would be happier to part with their organs after (natural) death if they knew their families would benefit from the exchange in a monetary fashion.

The problems with putting a price on organs become broader when you think about debts. The extremes of murder and kidney theft might well be manageable based on the normals laws against violence. But what do you do with people who feel compelled to sell organs to pay off debts? Getting into debt is a voluntary action that can hardly be forbidden. But getting out of debt comes with all kinds of legal enforcement that could turn "voluntary" organ sales into de facto obligations.

Your life insurances are a good example: many life insurances are in some way related to mortgages, often as requirement to get the mortgage in the first place. A lot of life insurances are hardly voluntary purchases, but unavoidable in the process of getting a house to live in.

In similar ways, debts can easily turn paid organ donation away from the voluntary ideal. If you go bankrupt and organs have a market value, are you required to sell your kidney to pay your creditors? Or at least the rights to your after-death organs? What about people who die indebted without being a donor? Can creditors force a sale of the organs anyway?

If we explicitly exempt organs from bankruptcies, can people still voluntarily offer a kidney or after-death rights as collateral, for example for a personal loan or for start-up capital for a business? Like life insurances for mortgages, such "voluntary" collateral could easily morph into an unavoidable requirement to get a loan. Even if a creditor doesn't care about the monetary value of your organs at all, the mere fact that you might have to sell them is a brilliant pressure to make people avoid bankruptcy.

The above is hardly a theoretical exercise. If you look at things that are taboo to sell, then they are often historically related to debt. They are things that lower the bottom line of nothing-left bankruptcy even lower.

Debt slavery for example is a common practice in many forms, both from people 'selling' themselves and from selling their children. "Voluntary" prostitution is of course another practice that becomes highly problematic when debts are involved. It's also why you can't sign a contract allowing other people to whip you for money. Voluntary organ sales fall very much in the same tradition.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby kazvorpal » Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:27 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Where you see nothing but tyranny, the vast majority of societies had the foresight to take reasonable regulatory action to preserve the interests of the not-super-rich -- and protect the ability of the truly less fortunate to one day be on the receiving end of an organ that your system would disproportionately set them up to have already sold.

In this case, a kidney might have a market-assessed value that is achievable for the everyday individual but the larger and less-frequently transplanted organs (i.e. heart) would surely pass beyond the economic means of most people. So instead of a panel of knowledgeable, third party doctors assessing need or long-term survivability, the only means of sorting you leave is who has the largest wallet.

Not everything in life is fixed by a completely free market economic approach.


As always, this kind of control ends up producing the polar opposite of what you are claiming to be its goal.

What we have, now, is a system where only the super-rich can have anything but a random chance of having a kidney.

And your unrealistic "what if", used to violate our choices, could be applied even more plausibly to things even more important, like food and shelter. Perhaps we should ban the sale of food, lest only wealthy people eat. Food is infinitely more necessary to the survival of even the poorest person, than a kidney. There is no substitute for it, at all.

Were selling organs legal, many people would choose to sell theirs...because they have two. This is as much their right as selling their labor. You could as reasonably say that people shouldn't be forced to work to buy food, as that they shouldn't have to sell an organ because they want thousands of dollars.

But, in both cases, the person saying that is arrogantly condemning people, violating their right to choose what they believe is best for themselves, and devastating our society in doing so.

Keeping to this theme, do you really think we'd be better off if panels of experts decided who needed what food, instead of the marketplace? You could argue that this would ensure that food were really distributed to each according to his need...but that, of course, is a known evil. It would cause far more hunger and starvation, not less, as it always has.

Not everything in life is fixed by a completely free market economic approach.


Nothing in life is fixed by banning freedom of choice.


Oflick wrote:I would argue that's not necessarily the same situation. If a rich man died and his will said that his money would be "buried with him", then no I would not support something like that. If it were actually going to next of kin or at least to someone it wouldn't bother me. The problem I have is something potentially useful being wasted because someone wants to own it even after their death.


People seem to forget that your "will" is an expression of your private property rights WHILE YOU ARE ALIVE. It is your will that these things be done. If you want to bury your money forever, right now, you have a right to do that. If, today, you want to set the date for that burial for exactly one year from now, in order to protect it from whichever jerks win the election, that is also your right. If you want to set that burial date as "the day after I die", that, again, is your right.

Likewise, you have as much right to declare that nobody touches your kidneys after you die, as you do to say nobody can remove one from you right now.

In a sense, forcing people to donate their organs after death is the same violation as if you forced them to donate, say, a kidney while they were alive.

Oflick wrote:Are you talking about people being paid to sign up as organ donors? Or are you referring to people who are alive offering to give someone one of their kidneys then and there? I thought you were referring to the later, but Azrael seems to be refuting the former (At least that's how I read it - no one would sell their heart if they intended to live).

If it is people who are alive offering to give organs they don't need, I agree in theory, but have my doubts that it would work. If it is being paid to become a donor, who pays? Hospitals, the Government? Or, someone who needs an organ pays someone and just hopes they die soon?


People have a natural right to sell any of their property, with any sort of contract. That would include willing their organs to their family to sell after their death, same as if they sold a kidney, or some skin for grafts, or hair for plugs, while alive.

Imagine how many families are devastated by the loss of their main breadwinner, who instead of ending up on taxpayer dole, might have at least been able to follow the deceased's will to finance his death with his organs...and how many people's lives would have been saved, who are instead murdered by the law banning this sale, which results in that guy just being set in the ground, now-ruined organs intact.

How many people die so that the arrogant collectivists impose their own selfish taboos against trade, in this specific area?

fr00t
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:06 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby fr00t » Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:35 pm UTC

yukizora wrote:Not sure that has been mentioned, as I didn't read the whole 6 pages, but I guess a good idea would be to adopt the opt-out system, with all people that choose not to give their organs being forbidden from recieving one. You get what you give, after all...


I feel compelled to mention this; I thought of this idea some time ago and it seems overwhelmingly sensible to me. I can't fathom why it hasn't been implemented; it's all upside.

Zamfir wrote:In similar ways, debts can easily turn paid organ donation away from the voluntary ideal. If you go bankrupt and organs have a market value, are you required to sell your kidney to pay your creditors? Or at least the rights to your after-death organs? What about people who die indebted without being a donor? Can creditors force a sale of the organs anyway?


I don't see anything problematic with having after-death organ rights being treated as an asset, primarily because I don't see the rights to your own corpse as a liberty worth protecting. That is to say, I would advocate a system that did not recognize it as anything of the sort.

kazvorpal wrote:Nothing in life is fixed by banning freedom of choice.


What is a law if not something that restricts freedom of choice? Are you claiming all laws are harmful?

kazvorpal wrote:People have a natural right to sell any of their property, with any sort of contract.


What is the meaning of a natural right that is contrary to a legal right? Is it contextual, referring to the speakers' (in this case you) preferred ideology?

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:29 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:As always, this kind of control ends up producing the polar opposite of what you are claiming to be its goal.
kazvorpal: I don't know if you're familiar with how these sorts of discussions work, but stating 'you're wrong, it's the opposite' is usually followed by an explanation of why. You seem to have forgotten that part.
kazvorpal wrote:And your unrealistic "what if", used to violate our choices, could be applied even more plausibly to things even more important, like food and shelter. Perhaps we should ban the sale of food, lest only wealthy people eat. Food is infinitely more necessary to the survival of even the poorest person, than a kidney. There is no substitute for it, at all.
Unlike organs, there is not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in our country.
kazvorpal wrote:Were selling organs legal, many people would choose to sell theirs...because they have two. This is as much their right as selling their labor. You could as reasonably say that people shouldn't be forced to work to buy food, as that they shouldn't have to sell an organ because they want thousands of dollars.
Not a doctor, but I'm guessing natural selection had an excellent reason to give us two kidneys--and it wasn't so we could sell one for spare cash. I'm not comfortable with the proximity of physiologically life-altering (and life-shattering) decisions with liquidity. If everyone was well informed and debt couldn't be used as coercion, I wouldn't be as concerned.
kazvorpal wrote:How many people die so that the arrogant collectivists impose their own selfish taboos against trade, in this specific area?
As usual, the poor face two choices: Be shot by the collectivists or left to starve by the capitalists. Either way, they die. As always, the correct response is a measured analysis of various solutions and an assessment of their risks and rewards--not a knee-jerk attempt to defend our 'natural right' to sell whatever we want to whomever we please.

You've started with the conclusion that the capitalist approach is the most effective and beneficial one, and are in the process of working your way backwards to explain how and why. That's quaint, but this is a place for discussing real solutions in the real world. Not ideas made out of magical fairy dust that only work if we all clap our hands and believe.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:50 am UTC

kazvorpal wrote:What we have, now, is a system where only the super-rich can have anything but a random chance of having a kidney.
That statement makes no sense since the super rich don't have any more of a chance of being selected than anyone else. Remember, you can't currently buy organs.

If you're alluding to the cost of the transplant operation, that's a already a free-market decided cost in the US. It's huge, but yet still approachable by those with insurance.

kazvorpal wrote:Were selling organs legal, many people would choose to sell theirs...because they have two.

Two ... kidneys. Which is why I said that perhaps a kidney's free market value would be approachable.

In case you'd missed it, people don't have two of the other major ones. You couldn't sell one and stay alive. A free market approach might yield more organs because the monetary value would override the next of kin's respect for the cadaver of someone who wouldn't currently donate, but the price for those organs would rise. It would have to, considering that it's zero today. I'm suggesting that the equilibrium point would be so high that it would reduce the total number of feasible recipients, and concentrate the potentially larger-in-number amount of organs into an exclusive club of the super-rich.

To me, this is not an improvement over status-quo.

kazvorpal wrote:People have a natural right to sell any of their property, with any sort of contract.
No, they don't. First off you're playing the 'natural right' game. I have a natural right to do what ever the hell I can survive the consequence of, nothing more nor less. With no societal structure, there are no rules. Total anarchy does not recognize any rights whatsoever.

Which is why we're currently talking about the rights (civil or otherwise) granted and/or protected by societies. Societies have always reserved the right to place restrictions on what can be bought or sold per the desires of that form of society. In current society, attempts are made to restrict economic transactions that are considered harmful to (among other things) society as a whole (i.e. the sale of large trucks full of explosives), or the individual (i.e. crack).

Frequently this is done with a eye towards the externalities that a micro-scale economic transaction doesn't (or can't) always appropriately account for.

kazvorpal wrote:Imagine how many families are devastated by the loss of their main breadwinner, who instead of ending up on taxpayer dole, might have at least been able to follow the deceased's will to finance his death with his organs...and how many people's lives would have been saved, who are instead murdered by the law banning this sale, which results in that guy just being set in the ground, now-ruined organs intact.

How many people die so that the arrogant collectivists impose their own selfish taboos against trade, in this specific area?
Your exaggerated appeal to emotion is quaint, but faulty. Banning the sale of organs doesn't "murder" anyone who could be saved by wasted organs -- that not's what "murder" is anyhow. Instead, apathy, inertia, tradition and a whole host of other personal decisions on the part of the original owner and/or the next of kin causes those organs to go unused. Banning the sale does not ban donation.

kazvorpal wrote:
Azrael wrote:Not everything in life is fixed by a completely free market economic approach.
Nothing in life is fixed by banning freedom of choice.
At which point, you've either demonstrated that you're not thinking very broadly, or that your beliefs are so far to the fringe that no reasonable middle ground is possible with you involved in the discussion.

Seriously? Murder.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Jahoclave » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:48 am UTC

Also, just as a tip on argumentation. Saying capitalism is great and backing that up with, but them socialists be awful is not proof of capitalism's goodness. Nor, do you have any proof that things created under a capitalist economic system wouldn't have been created under a socialist or any other form of economic system.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled being wrong.

Also, what Az said about natural rights + rights are a social construction.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:00 am UTC

There's also the intersection between legal definitions of death, organ harvesting, and price tags--I don't know about any of you, but I don't want to give my doctor a financial incentive to declare me dead.

User avatar
Feddlefew
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:47 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Feddlefew » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:16 am UTC

Some people might be more concerned about their family members having a large financial incentive to murder them...
My spelling is abysmal. Just saying.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby kazvorpal » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:15 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:As always, this kind of control ends up producing the polar opposite of what you are claiming to be its goal.
kazvorpal: I don't know if you're familiar with how these sorts of discussions work, but stating 'you're wrong, it's the opposite' is usually followed by an explanation of why. You seem to have forgotten that part.


Except that you just provided it, for me:

The Great Hippo wrote:Unlike organs, there is not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in our country.


No, because it's legal to farm for profit, there's not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in this country.

Because it's illegal to sell your organs, there's a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of organs in this country.

If the socialists had somehow gotten those two laws backward, banning commercial farming but leaving people free to choose to sell their organs, we'd have plentyful organs and starvation.

The Great Hippo wrote:Not a doctor, but I'm guessing natural selection had an excellent reason to give us two kidneys--and it wasn't so we could sell one for spare cash.


Yes, and it didn't give us opposable thumbs so we could dig ditches, so we should ban commercial manual labor.

What nature did give us is ownership of our own body, ergo the right to do with it as we choose, as long as we don't violate anyone else's similar right.

And that's what they're doing...violating your ownership of your own body.

Nobody who's pro-abortion should find that tolerable, any more than they should find prostitution prohibition tolerable.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm not comfortable with the proximity of physiologically life-altering (and life-shattering) decisions with liquidity. If everyone was well informed and debt couldn't be used as coercion, I wouldn't be as concerned.

You should not be arrogant enough to impose your discomfort on others.

You not only rob people of their right to choose whether to sell an organ -- perhaps for money that will SAVE their own life -- but you also rob several thousand people per year of the right to live, because they are dying on the TEN YEAR waiting list solely because it's illegal for them to buy one.

Your "comfort" amounts to a sort of mass murder.

The Great Hippo wrote:As usual, the poor face two choices: Be shot by the collectivists or left to starve by the capitalists. Either way, they die. As always, the correct response is a measured analysis of various solutions and an assessment of their risks and rewards--not a knee-jerk attempt to defend our 'natural right' to sell whatever we want to whomever we please.

As always, they're poor because of the collectivists, in the first place. At least "poor" in the absolute sense. And as always, the world is too complex to go around violating everyone's right to choose how to manage their part of that complexity for themselves, on the theory that some central elites can somehow make the perfect choice and force everyone's eggs into just the right basket.

Especially when the choice they have consistently made for the past 30 years was to impose a system of death panels that murders more people than it saves, year after year.

Where it the End Justifies the Means sentimentality of the collectivist, in this case? Why is it that, suddenly, the principle of violating people's choices "for their own good" is more important than tens of thousands of people dying, who could be saved by legalizing their right to choose?


The Great Hippo wrote:You've started with the conclusion that the capitalist approach is the most effective and beneficial one, and are in the process of working your way backwards to explain how and why. That's quaint, but this is a place for discussing real solutions in the real world. Not ideas made out of magical fairy dust that only work if we all clap our hands and believe.

No, I started with the conclusion that our socialist system of organ donation is self-evidently failed, and murderous...because this is self-evident.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:37 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:No, because it's legal to farm for profit, there's not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in this country.
How much of that profit comes in the form of subsidies?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby kazvorpal » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

Feddlefew wrote:Some people might be more concerned about their family members having a large financial incentive to murder them...

Then they can choose not to donate their organs.

Your argument could as well be made for banning all inheritance.

gmalivuk wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:No, because it's legal to farm for profit, there's not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in this country.
How much of that profit comes in the form of subsidies?

Subsidies are another form of violation of our freedom of choice...and, in the long run, they reduce profits, as well as reducing the supply of food.

Azrael wrote:What we have, now, is a system where only the super-rich can have anything but a random chance of having a kidney.
That statement makes no sense since the super rich don't have any more of a chance of being selected than anyone else. Remember, you can't currently buy organs.
[/quote]

If only an organ donation could have saved Steve Jobs, he would have hopped onto a plane and flown to a country where it's legal to buy one.

Azrael wrote:If you're alluding to the cost of the transplant operation, that's a already a free-market decided cost in the US. It's huge, but yet still approachable by those with insurance.


Medical pricing in the US is almost purely socialized. The individual consumer pays less than 5% of his own costs, which is why medical treatments can easily cost twenty times what they should. If everyone paid their hospital bill out of pocket, a single Tylenol tablet wouldn't cost five dollars during your visit.

This is why health care costs are skyrocketing.

Azrael wrote:Two ... kidneys. Which is why I said that perhaps a kidney's free market value would be approachable.

In case you'd missed it, people don't have two of the other major ones. You couldn't sell one and stay alive. A free market approach might yield more organs because the monetary value would override the next of kin's respect for the cadaver of someone who wouldn't currently donate, but the price for those organs would rise. It would have to, considering that it's zero today. I'm suggesting that the equilibrium point would be so high that it would reduce the total number of feasible recipients, and concentrate the potentially larger-in-number amount of organs into an exclusive club of the super-rich.

Are you saying that you're so selfish and petty that you wouldn't arrange for, if you died, your organs to be sold in order to cover your family's expenses?

I think it's safe to say that SOME people, out of the huge pool in the US, would. Way more than the tiny percentage who do it spontaneously.

And no, there is no example of a free market in which prices simply shoot through the roof. What would happen is that supply and demand would find a balancing point, at which the most efficient number of organs were available. Ban the sale of apples, and apples would become very hard to find. Claim that legalizing them would make the "price shoot through the roof" would not only be false, but irrelevant even if it were true. If "free apples" means "almost no apples", then the infinite price increase to a dollar a pound when selling them was legalized is worthwhile, because then everyone CAN get one, if they really want it.

Azrael wrote:No, they don't. First off you're playing the 'natural right' game. I have a natural right to do what ever the hell I can survive the consequence of, nothing more nor less. With no societal structure, there are no rules. Total anarchy does not recognize any rights whatsoever.

Your socialized education system has, apparently, failed to teach you the difference between a right and a privilege.

Not surprising, since the lack of freedom of choice has caused that system to fail, too.

Didn't they bother to cover Enlightenment philosophy? Or did they skip right to 19th century collectivists trying to come up with rationale for violating your choices through a central authority?

See, the choices you could make, if nobody (ergo society) violated you, are your natural rights...by definition. They are the choices inherent in your being a sapient being.

You can point out that society (mainly government) can easily violate your choices...but that doesn't make them stop being rights. It just means those rights are being violated.

There's really nothing Rosseau or Bentham said that ever effectively addressed the points of the Paine or Locke, about your natural ability to choose.

Azrael wrote:Which is why we're currently talking about the rights (civil or otherwise) granted and/or protected by societies. Societies have always reserved the right to place restrictions on what can be bought or sold per the desires of that form of society. In current society, attempts are made to restrict economic transactions that are considered harmful to (among other things) society as a whole (i.e. the sale of large trucks full of explosives), or the individual (i.e. crack).


Yes, governments have always seized, through their power to commit violence, the "right" to restrict your choices...just as they almost always reserved the right to be governments by virtue of conquest, and then pass on that control over you to their genetic heirs.

That's because governments have, generally, been evil. They don't HAVE to be, but that's 99% of history. Doesn't make it right, or acceptable, or logical.

Your argumentum ad antiquitam is a fallacy.

Azrael wrote:Frequently this is done with a eye towards the externalities that a micro-scale economic transaction doesn't (or can't) always appropriately account for.


All of the hard evidence says that society works best as, in effect, a distributed-processing supercomputer where all components manage their own aspects of the whole independently, not as a coercively managed single central supercomputer.

In other words, those micro-scale transactions produce greater efficiency and better analysis and solution of externalities than central planning does, in the long run.

Azrael wrote:Your exaggerated appeal to emotion is quaint, but faulty. Banning the sale of organs doesn't "murder" anyone who could be saved by wasted organs -- that not's what "murder" is anyhow.

If your violation of someone else's choice ends up resulting in their death, you have killed them.

In some states, a variation of this is known as "felony murder":

If you commit a felony, and as a side-effect someone dies in a way that you never intended, and may even not have directly been involved with, you can still be charged with murder, because your original violation is what caused it to happen.

YOU, as emperor, don't like people being free to choose to sell a kidney. So you stop a man from doing it. The man who would have bought it dies on the waiting list. YOU, as the one who forced this decision, murdered him.

Azrael wrote:Instead, apathy, inertia, tradition and a whole host of other personal decisions on the part of the original owner and/or the next of kin causes those organs to go unused. Banning the sale does not ban donation.


Yes, in every nationalized industry, the inevitable failure of that industry is blamed on people being so terribly selfish that they don't spontaneously do what is both right and most efficient...

And that is sufficient reason, alone, to allow a system that rewards people for their contribution, in proportion to it.

Azrael wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:
Azrael wrote:Not everything in life is fixed by a completely free market economic approach.
Nothing in life is fixed by banning freedom of choice.
At which point, you've either demonstrated that you're not thinking very broadly, or that your beliefs are so far to the fringe that no reasonable middle ground is possible with you involved in the discussion.

Seriously? Murder.


Hardly.

I know that it's not immediately obvious to a collectivist, but murder is coercive. It violates freedom of choice.

The whole point of the natural rights argument is that your natural choices are /enhanced/ if they are protected by government, instead of being violated by them.

In other words, you are MORE free if you aren't allowed to violate others, because they are correspondingly kept from violating you.

Natural rights protected by government are the Golden Rule put to law.

You INCREASE freedom of choice, by protecting your right to choose to live from violation by others.

But violating your natural right to choose to sell an organ only reduces your freedom of choice.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:49 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:If everyone paid their hospital bill out of pocket, a single Tylenol tablet wouldn't cost five dollars during your visit.
And any actual serious procedure would bankrupt a large portion of patients.

And costs for procedures aren't skyrocketing because of socialized medicine. They're skyrocketing because that's how much they can get away with charging.

Yay capitalism!
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Azrael » Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:No, because it's legal to farm for profit, there's not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in this country.
How much of that profit comes in the form of subsidies?
Subsidies are another form of violation of our freedom of choice...and, in the long run, they reduce profits, as well as reducing the supply of food.

To answer gmal's actual question: ~$20 billion a year.

Anyhow, both of your claims were proven to be factually incorrect when the subsidies were enacted. Have they outgrown their need today? Sure, but that doesn't mean they're pushing profits down. You're clinging (again) to this "a completely free market is the bestest!" mentality without any facts behind your claim.

So ... citation needed

kazvorpal wrote:And no, there is no example of a free market in which prices simply shoot through the roof. What would happen is that supply and demand would find a balancing point, at which the most efficient number of organs were available. Ban the sale of apples, and apples would become very hard to find. Claim that legalizing them would make the "price shoot through the roof" would not only be false, but irrelevant even if it were true. If "free apples" means "almost no apples", then the infinite price increase to a dollar a pound when selling them was legalized is worthwhile, because then everyone CAN get one, if they really want it.
I'm rather well aware of how supply and demand work, thus my statements about where equilibrium would settle. While the equilibrium price for the banned-then-not apples might fall to a dollar a pound, the price for organs would not. It would be significantly higher.

kazvorpal wrote:
Azrael wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:Nothing in life is fixed by banning freedom of choice.
Seriously? Murder.
... murder is coercive. It violates freedom of choice ... You INCREASE freedom of choice, by protecting your right to choose to live from violation by others.
Indeed. You would increase overall freedom of choice by restricting certain expressions of that freedom. But that's not what you said. What you said was careless and incorrect. By your own example, banning murder fixes a problem -- by increasing the total free expression achieved.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:02 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:No, because it's legal to farm for profit, there's not a very dire, life-threatening scarcity of food in this country.
We don't farm organs. We remove them from people--via a painful, potentially fatal process that reduces overall life expectancy and potentially quality of life.

That seems like an important distinction.
kazvorpal wrote:What nature did give us is ownership of our own body, ergo the right to do with it as we choose, as long as we don't violate anyone else's similar right.
This is magical thinking. 'Nature' did not give us ownership of anything. My property rights exist only because they are acknowledged by the people around me and the society I exist in. If the government sent large men with shotguns to extract my kidneys, screaming "I HAVE RIGHTS!" would hold as much meaning as screaming "MAGICAL FAIRIES WILL STOP YOU!".
kazvorpal wrote:You not only rob people of their right to choose whether to sell an organ -- perhaps for money that will SAVE their own life -- but you also rob several thousand people per year of the right to live, because they are dying on the TEN YEAR waiting list solely because it's illegal for them to buy one.

Your "comfort" amounts to a sort of mass murder.
People have taken issue with selling organs for several reasons--one is that it would not create a surplus in excess of need (particularly of critical organs, such as the heart), leading to transplants shifting concentration from those in need to the rich and super rich; another is that it would create strong pressures on the poor to surrender their organs to the rich--legally and illegally.

Rather than discussing the pros and cons of an organ market with respect to these issues, you've decided to rely on emotional rhetoric and imply that I'm pro-mass murder.

Moving on.
kazvorpal wrote:Especially when the choice they have consistently made for the past 30 years was to impose a system of death panels that murders more people than it saves, year after year.
Citation, please?
kazvorpal wrote:No, I started with the conclusion that our socialist system of organ donation is self-evidently failed, and murderous...because this is self-evident.
There are two (basic) ways to divide up a finite resource; based on need, and based on financial value. Assuming a given resource does not exceed need (which seems like a reasonable assumption), regardless of your approach, some people will not receive that resource--when that resource is life-critical, that means those people will likely die. In other words, your approach is likely to cost lives as well.

Again, as always, the poor have one of two choices: Get shot by the collectivists or left to starve by the capitalists. I think we can do better.

EDIT: Oh, one more thing:
kazvorpal wrote:Medical pricing in the US is almost purely socialized. The individual consumer pays less than 5% of his own costs, which is why medical treatments can easily cost twenty times what they should. If everyone paid their hospital bill out of pocket, a single Tylenol tablet wouldn't cost five dollars during your visit.

This is why health care costs are skyrocketing.
I'm not highly knowledgeable in this field, but sky-rocketing health care costs correspond very closely with the arrival of HMOs.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:20 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:16 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:Nobody who's pro-abortion should find that tolerable, any more than they should find prostitution prohibition tolerable.
Also, this is bullshit. Because the problems with completely unrestrained organ selling or prostitution are completely absent in legalized but regulated abortion. For example, unregulated organ or full-body selling usually removes the very bodily autonomy on which people tend to base their pro-legalized-abortion views.

Your argument might hold any water at all if there were a market for aborted fetuses, but at least as far as I am aware, there isn't.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby kazvorpal » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:59 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:And any actual serious procedure would bankrupt a large portion of patients.

And costs for procedures aren't skyrocketing because of socialized medicine. They're skyrocketing because that's how much they can get away with charging.

Yay capitalism!


It is solely because procedures are funded by massive central organizations that they are so expensive, and it's exactly what any competent economist would expect.

If "car insurance" were provided by employers (masking the cost of the insurance, that they actually took 100% out of your pay like they do health insurance), and it covered, by law, ALL purchases of cars, and all routine oil changes, gasoline, et cetera, then oil changes and gasoline would cost ten times what they do today, and be in sort supply, and automobiles would cost as much as airplanes, yet be of lower quality than now.

Especially if the government had some sort of "Medicar" plan it used to cover old and "disabled" people's automotive needs.

If people paid out of pocket, this would limit prices to what people could afford...of course. You don't stay in business by charging more than your customers can pay.

It is the forced centralization of payment into massive, wealthy organizations that makes prices shoot through the roof.

There is no capitalism in our health care system, in the US. It is market socialism, at best. YOU don't pay, you don't even get to choose your own provider. That's not capitalism. Marx and Friedman both agreed that capitalism can only exist in an actual free market. Forcing people to accept a huge cut in pay in return for needless overinsurance, and then regulating every single aspect of treatment...that's not a free market. It's not capitalism.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:06 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:There is no capitalism in our health care system, in the US. It is market socialism, at best. YOU don't pay, you don't even get to choose your own provider. That's not capitalism. Marx and Friedman both agreed that capitalism can only exist in an actual free market. Forcing people to accept a huge cut in pay in return for needless overinsurance, and then regulating every single aspect of treatment...that's not a free market. It's not capitalism.
I don't understand. Who's regulating every aspect of treatment? The HMOs, as I understand it. Who's in charge of the HMOs? It's not the government, as far as I'm aware.

Is your claim is that the organizations who run HMOs have overstepped their bounds and created a self-perpetuating cycle of price inflation? I'm not well informed on this subject, so pardon me if I'm misunderstanding your position, but it sounds like you're asking for some form of regulation to prevent the centralization of medical insurance we have now.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby kazvorpal » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:To answer gmal's actual question: ~$20 billion a year.

Anyhow, both of your claims were proven to be factually incorrect when the subsidies were enacted. Have they outgrown their need today? Sure, but that doesn't mean they're pushing profits down. You're clinging (again) to this "a completely free market is the bestest!" mentality without any facts behind your claim.



Economics 101:

Price controls drive down supply. Subsidies create an unstable cycle of glut and shortage. They interrupt the communication of supply and demand that is a negative feedback loop. There was never a benefit to either subsidies or price controls. YOU need to a citation for the claim that there was EVER such a benefit. Then I can refute it. The burden is on your positive claim, not on me to prove a negative.

Azrael wrote:I'm rather well aware of how supply and demand work, thus my statements about where equilibrium would settle. While the equilibrium price for the banned-then-not apples might fall to a dollar a pound, the price for organs would not. It would be significantly higher.


I would hope so. My body is worth more than...well, whatever it is that I weigh, in dollars.

But it would be within reach...and would, as you realize if you do understand supply and demand, create the optimal supply. In other words, the supply would be better than now.

Fewer people would die.

Why does the end only justify the means when it means less freedom of choice? Why does it suddenly not matter when freedom would unarguably save lives?

Azrael wrote:
Indeed. You would increase overall freedom of choice by restricting certain expressions of that freedom. But that's not what you said. What you said was careless and incorrect. By your own example, banning murder fixes a problem -- by increasing the total free expression achieved.

There is no case to be made that purely reducing freedom of choice, as in this case, somehow increases freedom.

Any time you ban something in which all parties are consenting, you must, even from a simple mathematical perspective, be reducing overall freedom.


The Great Hippo wrote:We don't farm organs. We remove them from people--via a painful, potentially fatal process that reduces overall life expectancy and potentially quality of life.

That seems like an important distinction.

I suppose...it's the one that some pro-lifers use, about abortion.

In fact, now that I think about it, we definitely should ban people from CHOOSING to do things that they know will be painful or otherwise hurt them, but that they believe have a benefit that makes it worthwhile.

Oh wait, no I don't. They have a right to choose HOW to pursue happiness. If they choose pain that may save their life financially, it's really none of your business.

The Great Hippo wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:What nature did give us is ownership of our own body, ergo the right to do with it as we choose, as long as we don't violate anyone else's similar right.
This is magical thinking. 'Nature' did not give us ownership of anything.


No, it's physics.

You are, inherently, in control of your body. It is the natural realm of your sapience. Anything else, including its violation by others, comes after that, inherently. Unless you believe in demonic possession, I suppose.

Nature gave you gravity, and chemical reactions that impact ugly bags of mostly water in a way best defined as "control".

To imagine that you just have nothing, except what your masters who taught you passivity in government schools grant you...THAT is magical thinking.

The Great Hippo wrote:My property rights exist only because they are acknowledged by the people around me and the society I exist in.

Again, a right is an inherent power, not a privilege someone gives you. That's called a...privilege.

When your natural choices are violated, they are...violated. But they exist.

That's why the Bill of Rights never, ever says "the privilege to do X shall be granted by the state", but instead "the right to X shall not be infringed".

Those guys were definitely not magical thinkers...unlike the monarchist founders of the philosophical stance you're taking.

The Great Hippo wrote:If the government sent large men with shotguns to extract my kidneys, screaming "I HAVE RIGHTS!" would hold as much meaning as screaming "MAGICAL FAIRIES WILL STOP YOU!".


See? Magical thinking...you expect rights to be something that somehow stops people from violating them? Obviously, the word would then be meaningless. So we can turn around and recycle it, for choices that are inherent, but can be violated.

The Great Hippo wrote:People have taken issue with selling organs for several reasons--one is that it would not create a surplus in excess of need (particularly of critical organs, such as the heart), leading to transplants shifting concentration from those in need to the rich and super rich;


Wild speculation, in defiance of all economic experience. The rich and super-rich get their organ transplants today, if only by flying somewhere else to buy them. And there's no question that there would be MORE organs available...by the most ridiculously conservative estimates, far less than a third of the number of organs are transplanted today, than could be.

Why should even SOME people die, just to make you feel like your collectivist ideals are fulfilled? Why doesn't the saving of life come first?
The Great Hippo wrote:another is that it would create strong pressures on the poor to surrender their organs to the rich--legally and illegally.

And that doesn't exist today, with a black market that would NOT need to exist without the socialist prohibition?

As I noted, the poor are pressured to sell their bodies via labor, today. Is that bad, too? In fact, ALL things involve a potential pressure to sell them. Your argument is one that soulless Marxists have used all along, to claim that ALL commerce should be banned...no matter how many people it kills.

Stalin specifically chose to ban the sale of food, using EXACTLY the same arguments as for organ transplants, and even though he knew that it would cause the deaths of tens of millions of people by starvation. FDR wrote him a letter agreeing with and supporting that decision.

It's funny how heartless the collectivists turn out, when their early arguments are always about saving every last life by taking away "bad" choices.

The Great Hippo wrote:Rather than discussing the pros and cons of an organ market with respect to these issues, you've decided to rely on emotional rhetoric and imply that I'm pro-mass murder.


You have yet to deny that there would be MORE organs available.

That means more people would survive.

That means you are choosing a course you believe causes more deaths.

That is mass murder, in the "felony murder" sense.

Collectivists often advocate things that will kill more people, once the chips are down. That is an imperative point to make, especially when they are, indeed, claiming initially that it's to save every bit of life that necessitates them taking away freedom of choice.

The Great Hippo wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:Especially when the choice they have consistently made for the past 30 years was to impose a system of death panels that murders more people than it saves, year after year.
Citation, please?

Seriously?

What kind of credibility have you in this discussion, if you're not aware that paid organ donation was banned in the early 1980s, and resulted in a system of organ transplant panels, who literally weigh how much you DESERVE to get the organ, including things they don't like, such as smoking or promiscuity, and things that make you deserve to live less, like being older than someone else?

This is, as we Wikipedians say, non-controversial, ergo need not be extensively footnoted.

The idea that EVERYTHING needs to be heavily cited comes from people with censorship agendas lawyering information they don't want people to see.

Here:

http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/2009 ... ing-lists/

Don't bother reading the article, because you disagree with it. Follow all of the links, which are either to credible secondary sources, or themselves cite such sources. As I said, none of the facts in my stance are controversial, just the question of whether it's OK to make more people die, on the principle of ensuring that the wealthy have to fly overseas to get organs without waiting.

The Great Hippo wrote:I'm not highly knowledgeable in this field, but sky-rocketing health care costs correspond very closely with the arrival of HMOs.

[/quote]

Health care costs started skyrocketing in the 1960s, precisely in sync with the appearance of medicare.

HMOs, as a capitalist venture, were already a failure at that time. HMOs, as a socialized medicine imposition, were suddenly made universal in the 1970s, when the few surviving ones lobbied the Federal government to force all employers to offer them.

The HMO is a great example of Stop Blaming Capitalism for Socialism's Failures. Like the SUV, S&Ls, and many other initialisms, government regulation created the problem, and then the authoritarians used that problem to violate our freedom of choice that much more.

Here:

http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/trut ... -failures/

A fun little list of "capitalist" problems caused by lack of capitalism.


The Great Hippo wrote: With an organ market, those two variables disappear; now you could have a rich dude who burns through a heart every year, or a rich lady who needs a kidney in ten years buying hers while a poor lady who needs hers in fifteen minutes can't afford it. Would the surplus (and no one argues that there would be a surplus to the current system, I don't think) exceed the need?--if not, then you still have the possibility for a system that kills more than it saves.


If we accept, for the sake of argument, that this would happen (for the first time in all economic history), then you would SOLELY be arguing for the death panels to continue existing, NOT for the sale of organs to be illegal.

The Great Hippo wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:Any time you ban something in which all parties are consenting, you must, even from a simple mathematical perspective, be reducing overall freedom.
You cannot define freedom with math.


Why not?
Last edited by kazvorpal on Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:45 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:25 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:Why does the end only justify the means when it means less freedom of choice? Why does it suddenly not matter when freedom would unarguably save lives?
Because it's not inarguable. Right now, organs are delivered based on two conditions--need and condition (are you going to burn through this heart in a matter of weeks? Then we'll give it to someone who will get thirty years' use out of it -- You need a kidney eventually, but not right now? We'll make you wait a bit, then). With an organ market, those two variables disappear; now you could have a rich dude who burns through a heart every year, or a rich lady who needs a kidney in ten years buying hers while a poor lady who needs hers in fifteen minutes can't afford it. Would the surplus (and no one argues that there would be a surplus to the current system, I don't think) exceed the need?--if not, then you still have the possibility for a system that kills more than it saves.

You've reduced need to a binary ("I need it" - "I don't need it")--the current system is designed to reflect the reality of the situation, where need exists in a wide spectrum. In shorthand, it's a complex problem, and you're presenting a simple solution.
kazvorpal wrote:Any time you ban something in which all parties are consenting, you must, even from a simple mathematical perspective, be reducing overall freedom.
You cannot define freedom with math.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:31 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:Economics 101
The problem isn't that we fail to grasp basic economic principles. It's more that your understanding of economics doesn't appear to extend much beyond the 101 level.

There is no case to be made that purely reducing freedom of choice, as in this case, somehow increases freedom.
Except when it's reducing your freedom to choose to murder someone.

Any time you ban something in which all parties are consenting, you must, even from a simple mathematical perspective, be reducing overall freedom.
Consent is a spectrum, and can be coerced. The fact that you might technically have two choices in a situation (i.e. sell your organs or starve) doesn't mean you're especially free.

kazvorpal wrote:You don't stay in business by charging more than your customers can pay.
You do if you're only charging more than the poorest or sickest of your customers can pay.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Outchanter » Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:53 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Outchanter wrote:
Azrael wrote:In this case, a kidney might have a market-assessed value that is achievable for the everyday individual but the larger and less-frequently transplanted organs (i.e. heart) would surely pass beyond the economic means of most people.
If the supply went up, prices would drop...
Exactly where are you getting all these extra hearts to increase supply? Because people can't exactly pawn theirs off...

Nowhere did I suggest that people should part with their organs while alive. However, according to this article:

The shortage of donors isn't based on a shortage of brain-dead people in hospitals, but on the shortage of people whose organs -- even after they have opted into a convoluted and difficult organ-donation program -- never find their way to a viable patient.

"Research shows that there would be a increase of between 16 percent to 50 percent in the availability of organs, and others have speculated that this would eliminate the shortage of organs in some categories," said Eric Johnson, professor of business at Columbia University and a proponent of presumed-consent policy.


So supply could quite conceivably grow from where it is now.

User avatar
kazvorpal
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:43 pm UTC
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby kazvorpal » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:Nobody who's pro-abortion should find that tolerable, any more than they should find prostitution prohibition tolerable.
Also, this is bullshit. Because the problems with completely unrestrained organ selling or prostitution are completely absent in legalized but regulated abortion. For example, unregulated organ or full-body selling usually removes the very bodily autonomy on which people tend to base their pro-legalized-abortion views.

Your argument might hold any water at all if there were a market for aborted fetuses, but at least as far as I am aware, there isn't.

[/quote]

The argument for abortion, which kills another human being without their consent, is that it's the woman's body, ergo her right to choose.

Do you disagree with this?

And you have no autonomy, unless you can choose BOTH ways. Mandatory abortion is evil for at least all the same reasons banning abortion might be. You don't have freedom of expression, unless you can choose to remain silent. If Switzerland forces every able-bodied male to own a gun (so someone once claimed), that is the same kind of violation as banning guns.

gmalivuk wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:Economics 101
The problem isn't that we fail to grasp basic economic principles. It's more that your understanding of economics doesn't appear to extend much beyond the 101 level.


I see little evidence of that, here. Most of the reasoning is inductive, or abductive, ignoring economics in general. I'm happy to debate with you the most advanced monetary theory, to show you papers I've discussed with economic policy makers on the topic, et cetera...but here, I'm encountering people trying to claim that price controls and subsidies somehow are beneficial. That's not a viable economic position, at all.

gmalivuk wrote:
There is no case to be made that purely reducing freedom of choice, as in this case, somehow increases freedom.
Except when it's reducing your freedom to choose to murder someone.

It's not murder, if it's consensual...but I'll settle for you banning the selling of a heart WHILE the patient is alive...I take it you are against assisted suicide.

Let's set the rule that you can ONLY transplant an organ once the person is dead, or won't be killed. We can set "won't be killed" at the risk level involved in the largest number of abortions or cosmetic surgeries allowed by law.

So we keep the death panels -- who decide that an old rich person can just die, so a younger person can have the organ -- and we ban the sale of an organ whose removal is more of a danger than habitual, major cosmetic surgery or serial abortion.

Still no reason to ban ALL consensual sale of organs.

gmalivuk wrote:
Any time you ban something in which all parties are consenting, you must, even from a simple mathematical perspective, be reducing overall freedom.
Consent is a spectrum, and can be coerced. The fact that you might technically have two choices in a situation (i.e. sell your organs or starve) doesn't mean you're especially free.

kazvorpal wrote:You don't stay in business by charging more than your customers can pay.
You do if you're only charging more than the poorest or sickest of your customers can pay.


No, not in a free market. Again, this is an economic fact: Given a free market, all demands that CAN be met WILL be met, because someone will see that as a niche from which they can profit. It is the governmental barrier to entry into an industry that results in an oligopoly of overpriced providers.

As I noted before, you could make all of these arguments about food. And if the sale of food were banned, you almost certainly would claim that all evil capitalists would price out the poorest and make them starve.

And yet, of course, food would be scarcer in that scenario than this one, while there are many companies that cater specifically to poor people, because we DO allow the sale of food.

Ironically, farm subsidies were imposed, in part, because in a free market food prices tend to fall "too low", not be held too high.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby cphite » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:28 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:If everyone paid their hospital bill out of pocket, a single Tylenol tablet wouldn't cost five dollars during your visit.
And any actual serious procedure would bankrupt a large portion of patients.

And costs for procedures aren't skyrocketing because of socialized medicine. They're skyrocketing because that's how much they can get away with charging.

Yay capitalism!


The reason they can get away with charging so much is because the consumer is almost entirely insulated from the costs. This is not an issue with "capitalism" because it's not even remotely a free market system.

The problem is that the parties responsible for incurring costs - the patients and the providers - have no incentive to control said costs. The patient doesn't care because he's paying the same amount no matter what; and the provider actually benefits somewhat because he can sell services that aren't necessarily even needed, and he still gets covered plus a little extra.

If the patient and the provider actually had some skin in the game (ie. capitalism) then they'd have an incentive to control costs. If you need an example of this, check out the pricing trends for procedures that typically either aren't covered or are only partially covered by insurance - laser vision correction for example - versus procedures in general.

This is one of many reasons why the so-called "Affordable Care Act" is so misguided. It actually makes this problem worse, because it creates even more separation between the patient and the costs. It eliminates, for example, high deductible plans that allow consumers to pay a lower premium with the understanding that they'll pay more out of pocket. This means that customers who historically would exert at least some downward pressure on costs will no longer have that effect.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:You cannot define freedom with math.

That sounds like a movie tagline.
kazvorpal wrote:You are, inherently, in control of your body. It is the natural realm of your sapience. Anything else, including its violation by others, comes after that, inherently. Unless you believe in demonic possession, I suppose.

Nature gave you gravity, and chemical reactions that impact ugly bags of mostly water in a way best defined as "control".

To imagine that you just have nothing, except what your masters who taught you passivity in government schools grant you...THAT is magical thinking.

Why should I care about the bodily autonomy of anyone, let alone other people? At the very least, why should I value it above all other concerns?
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:26 pm UTC

kazvorpal wrote:The argument for abortion, which kills another human being without their consent, is that it's the woman's body, ergo her right to choose.

Do you disagree with this?
Yes, because you're begging the question of whether the fetus is a human being. And the reason unregulated organ selling and prostitution can reduce autonomy is because one of the two choices can so easily be coerced. And the only way the same can happen to abortion is if people can earn money by receiving them, instead of by performing them.

this is an economic fact: Given a free market, all demands that CAN be met WILL be met
And here we see the 101-level understanding you have.

If nothing else, to preserve the truth of this absurd claim we have to acknowledge that there are demands that CAN'T be met in a free market. Because they are of the form, "Perform this service at a price I can afford." And when that service is life-saving surgery, most societies have decided lives should be saved anyway, as long as the money is there *somewhere*.

Ironically, farm subsidies were imposed, in part, because in a free market food prices tend to fall "too low", not be held too high.
Again, please stop assuming it's the rest of us who have no understanding of economic history.

The problem with too-low prices is that they make farming itself unprofitable, and we'd rather not have farmers starving, either, or leaving that profession in droves, for what should be really fucking obvious reasons.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Jahoclave » Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:28 am UTC

kazvorpal wrote:
Azrael wrote:No, they don't. First off you're playing the 'natural right' game. I have a natural right to do what ever the hell I can survive the consequence of, nothing more nor less. With no societal structure, there are no rules. Total anarchy does not recognize any rights whatsoever.

Your socialized education system has, apparently, failed to teach you the difference between a right and a privilege.

Not surprising, since the lack of freedom of choice has caused that system to fail, too.

Didn't they bother to cover Enlightenment philosophy? Or did they skip right to 19th century collectivists trying to come up with rationale for violating your choices through a central authority?

So, I suppose I should propose a new rule: You don't get to criticize the education of others if you're going to skip centuries worth of intellectual thought.

See, the choices you could make, if nobody (ergo society) violated you, are your natural rights...by definition. They are the choices inherent in your being a sapient being.

You can point out that society (mainly government) can easily violate your choices...but that doesn't make them stop being rights. It just means those rights are being violated.

There's really nothing Rosseau or Bentham said that ever effectively addressed the points of the Paine or Locke, about your natural ability to choose.

Here's the problem you're running into with your idea of natural rights--there is no such thing as nature: You may have missed this due to stopping a few centuries too early. Ergo, because there is no nature you have no such thing as natural rights. You have socially constructed rights mystified through centuries of thought and an ideological construction of what is nature. Rights, in general, are a constructed, granted agreed upon and granted by members of a society.

Even as a sentient being, the 'rights' you have are only those you have constructed and given to yourself. On an extreme example, there is no natural right to exist. The universe doesn't give two shits in that regard. You're trying to root your rights firmly in a foundation when, in fact, no foundations exist. There's nothing which forces humans to act in a particular way. Even the idea of a biological imperative doesn't mean we, as rational beings, have to act upon it.

Azrael wrote:
kazvorpal wrote:
Azrael wrote:Not everything in life is fixed by a completely free market economic approach.
Nothing in life is fixed by banning freedom of choice.
At which point, you've either demonstrated that you're not thinking very broadly, or that your beliefs are so far to the fringe that no reasonable middle ground is possible with you involved in the discussion.

Seriously? Murder.


Hardly.

I know that it's not immediately obvious to a collectivist, but murder is coercive. It violates freedom of choice.

Another rule: Your argument isn't bolstered by assigning people into groups and then assigning those groups negative connotations. Calling a group of collectivists collectivists is only going to make them look at you funny. Don't bring your pathos to a logos fight.

The whole point of the natural rights argument is that your natural choices are /enhanced/ if they are protected by government, instead of being violated by them.
[/quote]
Replace "are /enhanced/" with "only exist" and change government to include society as well. See above for why your idea of natural rights is sadly lacking.


What kind of credibility have you in this discussion, if you're not aware that paid organ donation was banned in the early 1980s, and resulted in a system of organ transplant panels, who literally weigh how much you DESERVE to get the organ, including things they don't like, such as smoking or promiscuity, and things that make you deserve to live less, like being older than someone else?

The same lack of credibility you have. After all, as far as I know you're an unemployed 44 year old blogger, if your profile is to be believed. I think what he was mainly pointing to was that your wording was egregiously stilted. While paid donation may have been banned, and is thus a common knowledge fact, your resulting opinion on what replaced it is not a non-controversial fact. After all, your claiming that these panels are "death panels" who "murder" people is an opinion, not fact.

This is, as we Wikipedians say, non-controversial, ergo need not be extensively footnoted.

Well, that's nice, but you're not on Wikipedia, and see above.

The idea that EVERYTHING needs to be heavily cited comes from people with censorship agendas lawyering information they don't want people to see.

Or it comes from establishing validity, giving credit to the original authors, providing a chain of evidence as it were, and allowing the reader to verify where the information is coming from. It's not about censorship, but rather about not boldly making shit up. And, a word of advice, you might consider tampering down your editorializing. Your hyperbole isn't doing your credibility any favors.

Here:

http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/2009 ... ing-lists/

Don't bother reading the article, because you disagree with it. Follow all of the links, which are either to credible secondary sources, or themselves cite such sources.

As there isn't an article, but rather more of your hyperbolic editorializing. Hell, nine of your "articles" don't even have sourcing. Interestingly enough, the wikipedia article you cite for your HMO piece doesn't back up anything you say other than minor details. Your conclusions are, for all-intents and purposes, entirely unfounded and fallacious.

Also, citing your own blog. Really?


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests