It's time to bring back usury laws.

[ShaneWalter]

What's wrong with selling organs? I haven't seen anyone articulate this.

I wouldn't be entirely against the domestic trade in organs. It would probably increase organ donation significantly, and the prices probably wouldn't be that high (in relative comparison to the amount it costs for an organ transplant).

The idea that somebody, in say, Botswana, that needs a heart transplant would be unable to recieve it, because somebody in Germany will pay more for it strikes me as immoral.

[notyoueither]

The risks of surgery. People die. Lots of people don't, but some do.

The risks of living without a part of the body, like a kidney. Lots of people don't see a situation where they are affected, but some do.

In short, the rich ****er buying a kidney is purchasing years off of someone else's life.

There seems to be some sort of agreement that this is not a commercial transaction that is acceptable to civilised people.

The need for organs could be resolved by other means if it were that pressing.

[Kuciwalker]

I wouldn't be entirely against the domestic trade in organs. It would probably increase organ donation significantly, and the prices probably wouldn't be that high (in relative comparison to the amount it costs for an organ transplant).

The idea that somebody, in say, Botswana, that needs a heart transplant would be unable to recieve it, because somebody in Germany will pay more for it strikes me as immoral.

Does it also strike you as immoral that Canadians can get better medical treatment than Botswanans, because good doctors can earn a lot more money in Canada than in Africa? Should we therefore force some Canadian doctors to move to Botswana?

THE ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING MORE MONEY IS THAT IT LETS YOU GET MORE STUFF.

[KrazyHorse]

Have they always followed the advice of western economists and institutions? Nope. You say China is indicative of what happens when a state embraces trade liberalization. I say China is indicative of what happens when a state cautiously embraces trade liberalization.

No, China is an example of what happens when, god help me for saying it, the government is STRONG ENOUGH to enforce RULES so that people can be SECURE that they won't be arbitrarily expropriated by the mobs with pitchforks.

It does have something to do with the government. What it DOES NOT have to do with is some sort of "managed liberaliztion".

Anarchy doesn't work. Nobody with a functioning brain thinks it does. There are loads of places on the planet where liberalization doesn't work because things are too close to anarchy. Parts of Africa springs to mind. So do parts of SA. In other places the government is strong enough to enforce the rules, but instead acts like a kleptocracy. Other parts of Africa spring to mind.

Get a ****ing clue, numbnuts.

[notyoueither]

Human body parts are not 'stuff' to be bought, outside the pages of a Rand novel.

[ShaneWalter]

You think when I said wipe out their debt, I meant just spread some magic pixie dust and make it disappear?

So your suggestion is to pay off all the evil bankers who made those loans to the cruel dictators?



Keep your story straight, ****. Either your going to punish those nasty bankers or you're going to maintain the credibility of borrowing by the third world. You can't have it both ways.

You call me lazy? You just blatantly put words in my mouth to make it appear I was advocating two diametrically opposed policies. I never once said anything about punishing anybody.

When many developing countries spend more on debt servicing than they do on health and education combined, there is a serious problem. It is not lazy to point that out.

It's lazy to point to that as the reason that poor countries are poor. To paraphrase, rich countries are all alike. Poor countries are all poor in their own way. Everything has to go right in order for poor countries to break themselves out of their poverty trap. The developed world didn't make those countries poor, you simpering twit. They just haven't gotten rich yet. Your simplistic narrative of evil developed countries exploiting ("raping" ) the poor countries is absolutely retarded.

[/quote]

I never said it is the reason that countries are poor. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Certainly a big reason countries are unable to break out of their poverty trap is their crippling debt load, though. Or do you deny that?

Of course there is more to it than just debt loads, that was just one example of a way that the policies of the developed world have hurt developing countries. You are latching on to one example, and then calling it simple. Of course it is simple, it is one example.

[KrazyHorse]

In short, the rich ****er buying a kidney is purchasing years off of someone else's life.

The money that rich ****er gives the poor ****er MIGHT WELL PURCHASE MORE YEARS OF LIFE for that poor ****er or his family. Holy ****ing ****. We're not talking about giving the guy a lifetime subscription to hustler. We're talking about life and death in the mud here. Money buys life.

[Kuciwalker]

The risks of surgery. People die. Lots of people don't, but some do.

The risks of living without a part of the body, like a kidney. Lots of people don't see a situation where they are affected, but some do.

Plenty of jobs face risks. Road workers risk getting hit by cars every day. Cops and soldiers risk getting shot. Third world factory workers probably have safety risks too. Why are some people allowed to decide acceptable risk in commercial transactions while others aren't? Why are the risks of organ transplants sufficiently different from other risks that we will PROHIBIT people from ever taking them?

In short, the rich ****er buying a kidney is purchasing years off of someone else's life.

Or the rich ****er could be buying extra years for the other person's life too, by giving him a HUGE windfall that could even lift him up from poverty and certainly save him from starvation etc.

There seems to be some sort of agreement that this is not a commercial transaction that is acceptable to civilised people.

Articulate why you think this is unacceptable, apart from "all the other civilized people think so".

The need for organs could be resolved by other means if it were that pressing.

Oh, really? That's why there aren't people who die waiting for organ transplants?

There is always a "pressing" need for organs as long as someone needs one and can't get it because none are [legally] available.

[ShaneWalter]

Does it also strike you as immoral that Canadians can get better medical treatment than Botswanans, because good doctors can earn a lot more money in Canada than in Africa? Should we therefore force some Canadian doctors to move to Botswana?

THE ENTIRE POINT OF HAVING MORE MONEY IS THAT IT LETS YOU GET MORE STUFF.

Actually, provinces used to openly "poach" doctors from African countries in past decades. They would outright go to African medical schools and talk to doctors about coming to Canada. Recently, those activities have mostly ceased, as it has been acknowledged the damage this has caused in African countries. Academic studies have been conducted on the damage done to African countries when African trained doctors leave to countries such as Canada.

So yes, it does strike me as immoral that my country actively recruited doctors from developing nations.

[Kuciwalker]

Human body parts are not 'stuff' to be bought, outside the pages of a Rand novel.

Why not?

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, provinces used to openly "poach" doctors from African countries in past decades. They would outright go to African medical schools and talk to doctors about coming to Canada. Recently, those activities have mostly ceased, as it has been acknowledged the damage this has caused in African countries. Academic studies have been conducted on the damage done to African countries when African trained doctors leave to countries such as Canada.

So yes, it does strike me as immoral that my country actively recruited doctors from developing nations.

That's not what I said.

[KrazyHorse]

You call me lazy? You just blatantly put words in my mouth to make it appear I was advocating two diametrically opposed policies. I never once said anything about punishing anybody.

Are you seriously too stupid to recall what you said 20 minutes ago?

If the debt that developing countries owed to developed countries was wiped out, it would do much much more than any international organ trade. Oh, but that would hurt KH's buddies.

What is it, ****? Are you suggesting that the evil bankers be made whole or that their debts be repudiated? You can't have both.

[Kuciwalker]

Shane, you're basically arguing for global medical rationing on a country-level basis, but with each country limited to whatever medical resources it can produce domestically.

Why?

[KrazyHorse]

ShaneWalter's morality appears to be based on countless hundreds of arbitrary rules he's come up with, with no logical basis for any of them.

[notyoueither]

In short, the rich ****er buying a kidney is purchasing years off of someone else's life.

The money that rich ****er gives the poor ****er MIGHT WELL PURCHASE MORE YEARS OF LIFE for that poor ****er or his family. Holy ****ing ****. We're not talking about giving the guy a lifetime subscription to hustler. We're talking about life and death in the mud here. Money buys life.

Assuming he lives to spend it.

Of course, in your example of India, many of those organs were not being purchased from willing donors. They were being stolen.

This is OK by you, of course.