We'll go in order. You're so much fun!
Why is this particular market not subject to the law of supply and demand? Granted, the government enforced regulation of the medical industry will raise prices quite a bit, but if there is a surplus, one would expect prices, both for donating and for receiving, to drop.
Apparently you don't understand the law of supply and demand. You refuted my statement that some would be unable to afford organs even after the price drop on the basis of "the price drops". Are you saying the law of supply and demand states that when there is a surplus, everyone can afford the product? Because it does not say that, in fact is says the opposite for very valuable commodities, even when there is a large surplus.
I'd sure like to see evidence that anyone is starving to death in the US except possibly because he's too stubborn or proud to accept help. If you can provide it, so be it, but I've travelled a lot and I've talked to a lot of people, including people who work in shelters and so on, and this claim just doesn't match what I've seen - anywhere. Outside the US, sure, but look at the reasons. Most of Africa is perpetually embroiled in petty civil wars; relief workers often refuse to go there for fear of being abducted or killed. That's probably 90% of the starvation cases on the planet right there, and it has nothing to do with greed on the part of anyone except for African government leaders.
Well, it's impossible to prove or disprove who's starving in the united states because the statistics are unavailable. Try looking, maybe you'll have better luck. Anyway, as to 90% of the world's hunger being due to african leaders, whatever that means, here's UNICEF's report on world hunger and its causes. Here's a quote:
Malnutrition's global toll is also not mainly a consequence of famines, wars and other catastrophes, as is widely thought; in fact, such events are responsible for only a tiny part of the worldwide malnutrition crisis.
You are confusing "freedom" with "storybook happy endings." "Freedom" is not "freedom from any influence whatsoever." Poor people CAN(and sometimes do, as I have seen,) choose not to take various opportunities available to them because of concerns over the downsides to them. However, it is quite possible that a poor person actually thinks he is better off taking $1000 to eat some perchlorate than not doing so, and he might well be right. This is not a violation of any freedom he has; on the other hand, you'd be depriving everyone involved of their freedom if you banned such things.
It's always possible that harm could cause beneficial effects later on, but we disallow it anyway. For example, hypothetically speaking, someone might stab me in the gut, and when I get to the hospital I find I have another serious illness that I would not have noticed in time were it not for that. Sure, whatever, weird things happen. But the point is the harm is so greivous we don't allow it, and I'd file assault against the guy who stabbed me regardless.
You and I apparently differ on the meanings of words such as "bribe," which I do not apply to open transactions among consenting adults who are not trying to influence someone in a position of governmental power, and "freedom," which I do not equate with "never feeling any pressure to act in any given way." Freedom as you desire it is a myth; we all, including the richest among us, are compelled in a variety of ways by our circumstances.
Well, that's one definition, the other, in the dictionary, is listed as "any enticement meant to condition behaviour"... I think characterizing it as a bad thing depends on the behavior we're trying to condition, don't you? I didn't say "freedom from any influence", but I think that freedom from being influenced with wads of cash to contract terminal illnesses for corporate profits qualifies, as I've been arguing all along. Why don't you address my points, rather than making up your own?
I don't think hiring a hitman should be legal either; there is a difference between payment to commit a crime and payment to do something dangerous. Therefore, your analogy is faulty.
Uh, last time I checked organ trade was illegal, too, buddy. What are you even arguing? We're having a discussion about free market trade of organs, and other body freedom and whether it should be legal. You're arguing that analogy is faulty because I'm ignoring the fact that there's a difference between legality and harm? On the contrary, I'm pointing out the connection betweed legality and harm. I said there's a question of whether harm is done in whether we allow people to do something.
The question is whether laws are broken. People do harm to themselves and others in countless ways every day; not all of these fall under the purview of the government, nor should they.
Uh, right, which is why we're discussing body freedoms. So you're saying this perchlorate study should be allowed because it is legal. If that's the case, why all the hoopla? Your argument is circular: It's allowed because it's legal, and it's legal because we allow people to do legal things. Forgetting that we make things illegal because they do harm, which is the whole point I was trying to make. Guess you missed it.
[ Parent ]