[cornell532]

Libertarianism would say that hit-jobs (and stolen organs) involve coercion. That is, it's not "2 consenting adults", but rather a market for doing harm on to other people and creating a "externality effect" of harm. This is similar to dumping pollutants into our air or oceans. Yes it might appear "free", but it actually does harm to 3rd parties.

In fact, I think the market for human organs is an interesting analog. Personally, I think that introducing free-market principles into organ exchange would be beneficial to all! The notion of paying someone to agree to donate their organs at the end of their life benefits all of society (see wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation): LIVES are saved with the greater availability of organs, and the life of the donor is improved with access to money that he/she would otherwise not have. This is not a zero-sum game in which one person must lose for another to win. A principal of economics is that through commerce/trade/exchange we both prosper! Both sides want what the other side is giving them more than what they have to give up. ie the donor wants money more than organs, and the recipient wants organs more than money. Both sides win!

I have absolutely no problem with compensating organ donors for actually helping other humans and improving society through their generous donation.

Likewise, if 2 consenting adults want to engage in a relationship in which 1 works for an agreed upon wage, and the other provides that work, I see no reason to intervene in that arrangement. As long as each party is aware of the risks and the full terms of the deal are openly on the table (ie if doing this work could be deleterious to worker for some reason and that information is not disclosed) then people should be free to engage in their course of business.

[whateverer]

Yeah... that would get really morbid as desperate people start to sell their organs to secure the welfare of their loved ones. Sometimes rational actors acting in their best interest is the least important part of how you model a problem.

[cornell532]

What do they do now? You make it sound like there's a better alternative currently available!

The reason they would consider selling a FUTURE interest in their organs is because it would be the best option on the table. Since it's not currently available as an option, they must be choosing considerably worse option now (which is the best currently available option).

How is your alternative more just, more fair, better?

---------------- EDIT ----------------

Imagine YOUR loved one received a liver/heart/kidney in this manner, thereby saving his/her life. And in so doing it DID improve the welfare of someone loved by the donor allowing him/her to get a better education, get better housing, or something else worthwhile.

What is so horrible about that? Your insurance company would cover it and it would make the world a BETTER PLACE for everyone. By the way, the surgeon gets paid a lot of money for a complex procedure like organ transplant; what's wrong with a donor getting a tiny fraction of that for his/her contribution providing the amazing, wonderful gift of life?

[whateverer]

Well, without regulation it won't necessarily be the _FUTURE_ interest in selling an organ. As I said, desperation can make a person do crazy things, and there's more to consent whether there's a contract involved and no guns pointed to anyone's head.

And while it creates an incentive to donate organs, it also allows wealthier people to hoard them. Remember that the circumstances which allow the organs of a person to be successfully extracted for transplant are pretty rare[1], they essentially have to die in a hospital of brain death with their organs intact, so even if more people are willing and legally bound, offer may still fail to satisfy demand, only this time it will be mostly a matter of who has more money. And that's not exactly fair.

1. http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/death/

[cornell532]

By the way, as a separate issue; if people were allowed to bid for organs. And assuming you're right that rich people horded them, then wouldn't the supply rise up to meet that new demand? Wouldn't more people sign up to be organ donors? Wouldn't we reach equilibrium where the supply side matched the demand side? If poor people were getting fabulously wealth from committing to donate organs, and more lives were saved, wouldn't we eventually reach equilibrium? The 1% only need so many organs.... Poor people with money in their pockets and less organ shortage wouldn't be a horrible scenario. Maybe it would force the real hard work of cloning organs and improving a unsatisfactory system.

I must say, if it became an outright bidding system some people who society might say are less deserving than someone else might benefit. But that happens already! Look at Mickey Mantle who received a liver after a lifetime of alcoholism (and died soon thereafter). Or Steve Jobs who shopped around for the best region to receive a new organ (he's not FROM Tennessee after all...).

So please tell me, how would a MORE market based system be significantly worse? It seems like we have the worst of everything right now in our pursuit of the idealistic fantasy that the system treats everyone equally and that organ donation should be a purely altruistic gesture.

[cornell532]

I agree with everything you're saying (except the part about hording) perhaps....

My expectation is that donors would be paid based on expected value, which is how (I believe), the issue is being framed in debates.

ie assume there's a 1% probability that potential donor will be a.) young enough b.) die under right circumstances.

Then we should offer that potential donor 1% of the expected value of his/her organs (ie if organs are worth $100k then we should offer $1k).

Obviously these are all made up numbers. But the idea of paying up front based on expected value makes sense to me in theory.

[pron]

Well, I think that the problem with what you're saying is the definition of "consent". Suppose there existed a part of society that was born to people of means, or at least - connections. Then, suppose there was another part that was born to generations of neglect, and even abuse by the other part (I think that in the US, abuse had taken some extreme forms at various times in history). Now, I'm not so sure that a person coming from the disadvantaged part of society can actually give his free "consent" to sell a kidney to someone coming from the well-connected part. Sure, both side may want what the other side offers, but I doubt the freedom of such a decision. There are many forms of coercion - some of them very subtle yet very powerful.

EDIT: Though, again, my main complaint isn't about one opinion or another regarding this issue, but about the lack of discussion of what is, in-fact, the real issue here. Instead, I see commenters suggesting ways to deal with vandalism or "crap data". To me it sounds like discussing the (efficient) mechanics of, well, I don't want to give extreme historical analogies here which do not apply, but the point is that people are quick to suggest ways for improving a process before giving serious, and I mean serious, thought to the question of whether this process should exist in the first place, and what could its effect be on the minds and souls of the people its targeting.

[cornell532]

Ah, now we arrive at the real nut of anti-Libertarianism: paternalism. The notion that somehow adults are not capable of making their own decisions. This is our fundamental disagreement. To me, impoverished, indigent people struggling to make ends meet are fully capable of making their own decisions. People fondly recall stories of their immigrant ancestors working hard and struggling in order to provide a better life for their children. Why do we want to curtail the ability of today's poor from making the same decisions? You're deciding for them that it's better to stay poor than whatever alternative they might choose for themselves (in an effort to climb out of poverty) because you know better than them.

I will admit, there are roles for government regulation in the marketplace. I simply do not know enough about the chicken I buy at the grocery to make an informed choice. I appreciate the health inspectors, organic labels, and other regulations that facilitate a free, fair, and efficient marketplace in which I do not need to know the farmer to be confident my chicken will not poison me.

However, I do not think lack of open (and understandable) information is the issue in this particular case.

Regarding your last point, I agree with you. The more interesting aspect here is not the implementation details, but rather the questions you're raising of free enterprise, the freedom to work, and the freedom to engage in free & fair commerce of your choosing.

[pron]

Sorry, buddy. What you're describing isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism must first of all advocate true liberty, including liberty from exploitation, and if it's not the government's job to enforce this freedom, then you must advocate the exploited's right to fight the exploitation, even through violent means, because exploitation is a form of violence as well. That people under extreme duress do not really have the option of a truly free choice is not paternalism - it's a fact.

What you're describing isn't libertarianism. It's simply a way to preserve power in the hands of those who already possess it. You can't condone the government's right to legislate laws that permit economic exploitation but prohibit violent opposition.

[ekianjo]

Define "exploitation", please. Words are important here.

[pron]

Exploitation: taking advantage of the other's misery to further your own goals.

If there were no people who are so poor as to need what meager pay the future mechanical-turk farmers are willing to give, those farmers wouldn't close down their services - they would either settle for less profit, or find another long term solution. This option exists only because of some people's hardships, and it's more profitable for the farmers to take advantage of this option, namely, people's misery, hence - exploitation.

[ekianjo]

Thanks for defining what you mean by exploitation. Now, exploitation can only exist in a market where workers have no choice but to accept the conditions of a single employer. This is typically the case when you are a slave for someone else and you have lost your freedom completely.

However, the have-nots (who are willing to work) can probably find several occupations, from different employers. They will have some range of choice concerning the salaries, the conditions and so on. Maybe not a large choice, but some choice. And one thing is clear: the less minimum wage there is, the more choice of occupations there will be, since there will be more employers generating occupations where profit can be made, since you lower the costs of labor at first.

Those occupations would not exist if it is easier or more profitable for people to stay on welfare.

And as it has been demonstrated in so many cases/countries, the longer one stays on welfare, the most likely one is not going to look for a job, welfare is actually a promoter of misery in the long term, especially for those who are at the very bottom, since they get no real incentive of getting out of it.

In a sense, politicians are guilty of exploitation as well, based on your definition. They take advantage of some voters' misery to promise them continuous welfare for which they are not responsible to pay for, and they further their own goals by getting rich in the process.

But, to come back on "exploitation" again. You are considering that is is a zero-sum game, basically. One, the exploiter, is gaining something while the exploited is losing. But economics almost never work that way. Both employer and employee have something to gain out of it. Both profit from the situation. The Employer makes money, can extend his business and ends up needing more people in his payroll. The Employee makes enough money to survive, has an occupation and has a social activity within society - they build relationship/reputation and somehow experience. They may not be making much monetary profit, but they are still gaining something out of it.

Please do not forget that all people who lived before us had to go through misery before reaching nowadays' living standards. If you come back a hundred years ago, then you may well consider that everyone then was being "exploited", but that is not how they would see themselves at the time.

[cornell532]

By your logic, pharmaceutical companies are exploiting cancer patients.

Patients with horrible, painful, fatal diseases are certainly miserable. Pharmaceutical companies are certainly looking to further their own goals through the development and sale of life saving drugs.