Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF
Because you possess the only degree in science here, I assume you know, for example, that liver donation only requires a part of the donor's liver, and the donor and the recipient should both regrow complete livers. And that healthy people do not need both kidneys.
The dean of the law school at UCLA (and a high school friend of mine) just donated a kidney to her father. No secret. And Professor Volokh also has my proxy. https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/15/kidney-donations/ |
In the abstract, the sale of corners of livers should be legal. As should sale of kidneys. But that wasn't my point. My point was the guy who thought this was an important market that needed to be protected was off his rocker.
I'm sure people buy and sell organs here all the time. The transaction probably takes place in cash, and no one's the wiser. And I doubt the government really cares, as it's such a niche. No FBI agent is going to bust a guy for selling a corner of his liver over state lines.
I also, however, shudder at what would occur if this market became a way for the well off to almost literally prey on the poor. Our economy is seriously unequal right now, and the poor are already debt serfs whose limited dollars are harvested by rentiers, predatory financiers, and our state and federal criminal fine and penalty enforcement regimes. In this kind of economy, the poor would become a used parts store for the rich. So while in a more fair economy, a market for organs could and arguably should exist, in the economy we have, where much of the country is desperate, that market would resemble something out of
Black Mirror.
This is why one cannot be a full libertarian. Like all ideologies, it has to be tempered with some form of guardrails... there must be arguments of degree.
ETA: And that's what made the book I cited, via reviews, sound so funny. Libertarians are funny. They take these mad black and white positions and run them to absurd ends. I obviously sound quite sympathetic to libertarianism, but I think that's by accident. I don't like absolutes. I'm fine with well reasoned guardrails. Personally, I think the guardrails should be as few as possible. But I think the level of regulation or legislation to be applied is subjective, and should be examined on a case by case basis. Free speech? I'm near absolutist. Organ sales? I'm in favor of some significant guardrails.
If I listen to Ayn Rand now, in middle age, she sounds like a bad comedy. The worst spokesperson imaginable for the proposition of enhanced freedoms. The better spokespeople for libertarianism than libertarians would be libertines (there is a difference). Libertines don't want to eliminate all laws. They want to eliminate most of those that apply to consensual behaviors among adults, and they want to relax application of those that are retained. Randians sound like strange birds the company of whom would not be much fun. Libertines? They just want to behave in a hedonistic fashion and keep more of their money (because they'd prefer not to have to work as much, so they could devote more time and resources to having a good time). Everybody can understand and appreciate that message.
