It's time to bring back usury laws.

[ShaneWalter]

Why should the organ availability in a given country be restricted to those provided by its citizens? Why is that the correct ration?

Your suggested policy on organs isn't analogous to "not specifically recruiting doctors from Zimbabwe", it's equivalent to "not letting doctors from Zimbabwe emigrate to Canada in the first place, so that we don't deprive the Zimbabwean people".

That is a good point.

I think I could find it acceptable were there to be an international market for organs coming from people already deceased or braindead and presuming there were safeguards to ensure that people's culture was respected. (Same things we have here, a person's family has to consent to it, the body is returned to be buried/cremated/whatever when the organs are removed, stuff like that) but a market for the sale of organs from people who are alive? I can't agree with that.

Maybe it is because I'm too simple, but like I've said before, I don't know if there are any countries that allow the export of human organs, so I think most people in developing countries agree with me.

Hell, how many countries have a legal domestic market for human organs?

[Dinner]

So far this discussion appears to be:

"Nobody would ever need a loan at that rate"

"I came close to being in that situation, and don't think the deal would have been too bad for me"

"Yeah, but we mean for other people; you know, all those stupid people who can't be trusted with their own money"

" "

No one has claimed that "Nobody would ever need a loan at that rate". Instead they have argued that the number of people who really need loans at that rate are fewer then the number of suckers who would get sucked in. That these loans most certainly won't be paid back in the majority of cases and are extremely risky only goes to show that eliminating them by capping rates would remove a lot of risky loans from the system while only effecting a handful of people. It has a lot of bang for the buck.

[Jon Miller]

Something to consider:

People know that I favor free and open immigration. But what about the developing countres? It seems like it just favors developed countries. A doctor in Cuba makes less than a Cab driver in the US. It is beneficial to him to get to the US in whatever way possible, and to waste his human capital.

In fact, a US cab driver gets paid so much more, and so there is enough demand for them, that all of Cuba's doctors could become US cab drivers. Now you say that Cuba doctors income would rise when some left for the US. And yeah, that is true. But Cuba is poor, it would take a huge price increase for it to be worth while financially to be a doctor in Cuba versus a cab driver in the US, which would drive medical costs out of the range of the people in Cuba.

So we aren't considering medical care in Cuba versus medical care in the US. We are considering medical care in Cuba versus not having to walk a block in the US.

Why is this discussion relevant? Because opening up the market on human organs would have the effect of adding human capital to every human being. It wouldn't just be the human capital of being able bodied, or an education, or smart, or artistic. It would give capital due to having a kidney/etc.

Honestly, I favor open immigration because it helps the US, which is the nation that has gotten the best immigrants and would continue to get the best immigrants. But it is worth it for the developing nations to place limits or restrictions on human capital leaving their country.

Also, what has mostly been ignored in this discussion, is the fact that many of these nations can't even handle getting aid or loans or anything of the sort. How can they ethically trade in organs?

JM
(I know that doctors would be in Cuba. But it would be those who weren't there due to market forces, but were there due to charity/etc.)

[Jon Miller]

Another consideration:

Lets consider the sex trade (unwilling). We will ignore it, but you could make some of the same arguments that unwilling is OK (selling their daughter off helps the family get food on the table, provides the money the son needs to go to school to make a better life for himself/etc). So the sex trade of kids. The point though is that it is something that most people agrees shouldn't be occuring.

Let's say one nation made it legal. If trade/etc with that nation was not severely limited, the other nations would be party to this activity (that they find morally wrong) due to the fact that the money of their citizens would go to it when their citizens travelled there to take part.

Lets consider something that is more real world, the trade in rare animal furs or tusks/etc. I know that the trade is entirely different, that is not the point. The world has shut down the market for it. Because if the market was allowed to exist, it would increase the people doing illegal things (the poachers) because more demand would exist. This isn't just some theory, this is what had happened before the market was restricted.

The point of these considerations are:
A. An International Market for something encourages the activity even in places where it is illegal. This is especially true for poor places where a single middle class person from a wealthy place will cause many people to act illegally.
B. If trade is allowed with a place where the traded good is acquired/etc immorally, those trading with the place are partially responsible for the immorality/etc.

All of this means that:

1a. If there is an international trade in organs, it might not be to a developing nations benefit to take part in it.
1b. For many countries, enforcing the 'willing' component would be hard or impossible.
2. Legalizing it would create a demand. The wealthy nations are rich enough that illegal behavior in poor nations would be encouraged.
3. If the rest of the world found a nations behavior morally wrong, they would have to severely limit trade/etc with it to not be party/encourage that behavior.
4. Severely limiting trade/etc with a single party is difficult unless they help enforce it and are strong.

These considerations suggest that an international trade in organs is a bad idea.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Also, what has mostly been ignored in this discussion, is the fact that many of these nations can't even handle getting aid or loans or anything of the sort. How can they ethically trade in organs?

Because organ donation is handled at an individual level and development and intergovernmental aid has to deal with governments. Governments which are corrupt, bureaucratic, inefficient, weak, etc. etc.

It's a lot easier to deal with forced organ donations when the trade itself is in the light of day than when every aspect of the trade is illegal.

[KrazyHorse]

Lets consider the sex trade (unwilling). We will ignore it, but you could make some of the same arguments that unwilling is OK (selling their daughter off helps the family get food on the table, provides the money the son needs to go to school to make a better life for himself/etc). So the sex trade of kids. The point though is that it is something that most people agrees shouldn't be occuring.

I have no idea what you think this analogy provides to the discussion. When somebody sells their own daughter there is generally no account taken of her value as a person. She is an unwilling participant in the trade. This is massively different than selling an organ.

Why do you insist on such fuzzy thinking, Jon?

[KrazyHorse]

don't know if there are any countries that allow the export of human organs, so I think most people in developing countries agree with me.

That's because, in political aggregate, people in developing countries are just as stupid as people in developed countries are.



The organ trade is tolerated, if not condoned, in a number of countries. Any nominal ban on it is just there so that politicians in those countries can go home feeling good about themselves as though they've done something positive.

[Zkribbler]

No one has claimed that "Nobody would ever need a loan at that rate". Instead they have argued that the number of people who really need loans at that rate are fewer then the number of suckers who would get sucked in. That these loans most certainly won't be paid back in the majority of cases and are extremely risky only goes to show that eliminating them by capping rates would remove a lot of risky loans from the system while only effecting a handful of people. It has a lot of bang for the buck.

During my last fews years at the court, I handled a lot of "collection cases." The vast majority of credit card cases involved interest rates of 35% and above. Then there was Cash Call, whose loans were 50-99%.

According to Dante, the Seventh Circle of Hell is for usurers. They're that deep because of their betrayal of mankind's industriousness.

[Jon Miller]

Lets consider the sex trade (unwilling). We will ignore it, but you could make some of the same arguments that unwilling is OK (selling their daughter off helps the family get food on the table, provides the money the son needs to go to school to make a better life for himself/etc). So the sex trade of kids. The point though is that it is something that most people agrees shouldn't be occuring.

I have no idea what you think this analogy provides to the discussion. When somebody sells their own daughter there is generally no account taken of her value as a person. She is an unwilling participant in the trade. This is massively different than selling an organ.

Why do you insist on such fuzzy thinking, Jon?

I didn't say it was similar in any way. In fact I said to ignore the arguments for why.

The point was how the international community/trade would react to a nation doing such.

Why don't you follow my argument?

JM

[Kuciwalker]

That is a good point.

I think I could find it acceptable were there to be an international market for organs coming from people already deceased or braindead and presuming there were safeguards to ensure that people's culture was respected. (Same things we have here, a person's family has to consent to it, the body is returned to be buried/cremated/whatever when the organs are removed, stuff like that) but a market for the sale of organs from people who are alive? I can't agree with that.

But why.

Until you explain that, your position is what KH just said: sqeamishness.

Maybe it is because I'm too simple, but like I've said before, I don't know if there are any countries that allow the export of human organs, so I think most people in developing countries agree with me.

"Most people agree with me" is not only not a good indicator that your policy is right, it may actually be a good indicator that your policy is wrong.

[Jon Miller]

Also, what has mostly been ignored in this discussion, is the fact that many of these nations can't even handle getting aid or loans or anything of the sort. How can they ethically trade in organs?

Because organ donation is handled at an individual level and development and intergovernmental aid has to deal with governments. Governments which are corrupt, bureaucratic, inefficient, weak, etc. etc.

It's a lot easier to deal with forced organ donations when the trade itself is in the light of day than when every aspect of the trade is illegal.

How about animal tusks/furs/etc with respect to poachers?

Once more, what is being discussed here is the trade aspect... not the reasons why/why not something should be illegal.

All evidence points to if there is a demand for something in wealthy countries then poor countries will have a booming illegal supply for that something if it is illegal for some reason.

JM

[Jon Miller]

"Most people agree with me" is not only not a good indicator that your policy is right, it may actually be a good indicator that your policy is wrong.

If a third world nation doesn't take part in it, due to culture/sqeamishness/benefit to that third world nation (due to limiting the human capital that is flowing out), and there is an international market for it, then it would encourage illegal/unethical type behaviors in that nation.

Also, evidence points to rampant corruption on a small level in many of these countries (including India), not just at the state level. My roommate and his friends didn't like the idea of going out into the woods because of a fear of bandits. This was a real concern in India, not here.

Until third world nations/developing nations say that they want to engage in such trade, we first world nations shouldn't enable it (international trade at least).

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, your argument was rambling and contained no logical thread I could find. First you compared sex slavery to organ selling, then told us to ignore it. Then you compared organ trade to rare animal products trade, despite the fact that the supply of legal rare animal products is PERFECTLY INELASTIC, while the supply of legal organs would be quite elastic.

Finally, you state the following:

3. If the rest of the world found a nations behavior morally wrong, they would have to severely limit trade/etc with it to not be party/encourage that behavior.
4. Severely limiting trade/etc with a single party is difficult unless they help enforce it and are strong.

WTF are you even on about here? How do either of these sentences contribute anything to the conversation?

These considerations suggest that an international trade in organs is a bad idea.

In conclusion, I think that pollution is bad. The end.

[Kuciwalker]

If a third world nation doesn't take part in it, due to culture/sqeamishness/benefit to that third world nation (due to limiting the human capital that is flowing out), and there is an international market for it, then it would encourage illegal/unethical type behaviors in that nation.

There's already an international black market that encourages far more illegal/unethical type behaviors.

[KrazyHorse]

All evidence points to if there is a demand for something in wealthy countries then poor countries will have a booming illegal supply for that something if it is illegal for some reason.

And if there is a LEGAL SUPPLY? This is PRECISELY THE POINT. I don't have a problem with strong safeguards against international trafficking in forced donations. All organs to be traded on the international market could be donated in facilities supervised, for example, by international doctors. Organs would be tagged at point of origin, and only verified legitimate organs could be imported to developed countries.

Now compare this to the current situation, where people who have the money and are desperate CANNOT legally acquire organs. This is the drug laws argument all over again, except in this case you don't even have the argument that drugs are bad, mmkay.

Forcing a trade underground is a GUARANTEE of all the associated criminality. In the drugs trade it's guerillas in Columbia, street warfare in the US, impure and inconsistent drugs killing people in their own homes. In the case of organ donation it's a back alley apartment with a bathtub full of ice and a barely trained surgical assistant.