Total Self-Ownership
Published by Prakash Chandrashekhar January 29th, 2005 in LibertarianOne of the many basic beliefs in libertarianism is the belief of total ownership of one’s self, body and soul. And since many empiricists doubt the existence of the latter, for legal purposes, one can say that libertarianism often boils down to two simple axioms.
- You own yourself totally.
- Other people are not your property
(I acknowledge this is taken from Strike-the-root)
Analyzing the first one is in itself a very profound exercise and any student of libertarianism will be surprised to the kind of conclusions it might lead one to.
I own myself totally. Now, what might that mean in reality?
I own my body. I have a right to use it. I have a right to change it and modify it. I have a right to ingest anything into it, if I am willing to bear the consequences of the “output”.
I own my soul – I have a right to think whatever I want. I have a right to modify myself mentally and explore different levels of consciousness.
Shall we analyze some of the consequences of this simple idea?
If I can modify my body, then this modification could include removal of body parts, so I should have a right to remove my kidney. If I have a right to remove my kidney, I have a right to sell it. Here the moderate suddenly chafes and looks at the libertarian with the jaundiced eye he reserves for the most evil.
But think about it in detail – why shouldn’t a person be allowed to sell parts of his body to others? (Note: parts, not the whole body)
There are normally two objections raised to this.
-Exploitation
-Morality
People claim legalisation would lead to exploitation. Let us analyze this claim of exploitation in the case of sale of body organs and prostitution (which should also be legalized if the doctrine of total self ownership holds true). There are a certain set of societal and personal circumstances, because of which a person finally comes to the condition where she has to sell organs or become a prostitute. (Let us assume that either activity lie absolutely at the pit bottom of preferences for any person to do and nobody, if given the choice would do them).
Can any government order help this? Ceteris paribus, is there any gain from banning that activity to this person who is near destitution? Maybe the government might ensure that there be enough capital for everyone, so that none be so destitute. But what is the way to build capital? - economic freedom for everyone. And economic freedom means that consensual activity of any kind not be prohibited, which brings us back to our organ seller. The seller has agreed, the buyer has agreed, so, the deal, I believe, should go through. And about this deal being done under duress, who do you think is under greater duress, the buyer strapped to a dialysis machine or the seller who can wait?
The moral objection – it is immoral. The body is a temple and all that jazz. On this objection, all I can say is that morality is subjective to persons and libertarian rule #2 has to be used “Other people are not your property”.
In addition to these two refutations, there are two positive arguments I would make for the legalization of sale of organs.
- the pragmatic one
- the “collateral” one
The pragmatic one - is what happens in the world today any different? The same operation described here is done in the black market where the poor person has absolutely no hope of redress incase something goes wrong. If the procedure was legalized then the fellow has a chance to move court in case he is cheated or treated badly. The procedures would be audited by medical and insurance firms, instead of being sensationally brought into the open by TV channels. (I absolutely abhor this “jism faroshee ka pardaa faash” shit that has been coming all too often on today’s news channels.)
The collateral one – any reader of economics knows that the presence of collateral reduces interest rates for everyone. The legalization of sale of body organs provides every human being an instant collateral worth (at the very least) around Rs. 50,000. (1 kidney + 1 eye + a sliver of the liver + some blood). Women would be valued more because of the possibility of usage as surrogate mothers. (I can almost feel the “you are pure evil” look that some people will give me). Thus, people don’t even need to sell their organs to take advantage. They can take loans and create enterprises, only a tiny percentage whose loans would have not been paid would have to go under the knife.
Summarizing this first part, I would like to say that the true and complete application of the law of total self-ownership will lead to better outcomes for everyone.
What about allowing unrestricted sale of body parts after the death?
How would the “You own yourself totally.” axiom apply to an issue like abortion?
The point where you start talking about organs as mortgageable assets is where you lose me and, I suspect, many others.
Sure, allowing the use of organs as collateral would reduce interest rates, but then again, so would the reintroduction of debtor’s prison.
I see two reasons for finding the notion of mortgaging organs objectionable. One is that a free society should place a moral premium on bodily integrity. Rape is rightly considered a more serious offense than, say, auto theft even though the latter may result in more economic loss than the former. We should consider forcibly taking away someone’s property to be on a different moral plane than taking away someone’s organs.
The second reason requires us to look at what kinds of enforcement mechanisms for contracts we would be willing to accept in a libertarian society. If I default on a loan, it is one thing to take away my house or car, and quite another to send the police (or a private protection agency, as the case may be) after me to forcibly inject me with drugs and cut out my liver. Such activity may have been common back when “The Merchant of Venice” was written, but haven’t we progressed since then?
If I violate the terms of a contract, there are two ways under law to hold me accountable. One is a civil lawsuit where I would have to pay money damages out of my assets or out of future wages. The other is an injunction where I can be physically coerced into upholding my end of the bargain or be threatened with imprisonment or any number of unpleasant things. The advent of bankruptcy law and the abolition of debtor’s prison in the 19th century limited a creditor’s recourse if a debtor defaults. If you’re willing to allow organs to be used as collateral for loans, why not also allow someone to use their future freedom as collateral: allow people to sell themselves into slavery to pay off loans?
I think libertarians should seriously consider the negative consequences of allowing unlimited recourse in the event of a violation of contract or a default on a loan. It admits some very unpleasant and ghoulish scenarios.
The bottom line for me:
a free market for organs: good
allowing organs to be mortgaged: very, very bad
The point where you start talking about organs as mortgageable assets is where you lose me and, I suspect, many others.
Sure, allowing the use of organs as collateral would reduce interest rates, but then again, so would the reintroduction of debtor’s prison.
I see two reasons for finding the notion of mortgaging organs objectionable. One is that a free society should place a moral premium on bodily integrity. Rape is rightly considered a more serious offense than, say, auto theft even though the latter may result in more economic loss than the former. We should consider forcibly taking away someone’s property to be on a different moral plane than taking away someone’s organs.
The second reason requires us to look at what kinds of enforcement mechanisms for contracts we would be willing to accept in a libertarian society. If I default on a loan, it is one thing to take away my house or car, and quite another to send the police (or a private protection agency, as the case may be) after me to forcibly inject me with drugs and cut out my liver. Such activity may have been common back when “The Merchant of Venice” was written, but haven’t we progressed since then?
If I violate the terms of a contract, there are two ways under law to hold me accountable. One is a civil lawsuit where I would have to pay money damages out of my assets or out of future wages. The other is an injunction where I can be physically coerced into upholding my end of the bargain or be threatened with imprisonment or any number of unpleasant things. The advent of bankruptcy law and the abolition of debtor’s prison in the 19th century limited a creditor’s recourse if a debtor defaults. If you’re willing to allow organs to be used as collateral for loans, why not also allow someone to use their future freedom as collateral: allow people to sell themselves into slavery to pay off loans?
I think libertarians should seriously consider the negative consequences of allowing unlimited recourse in the event of a violation of contract or a default on a loan. It admits some very unpleasant and ghoulish scenarios.
The bottom line for me:
a free market for organs: good
allowing organs to be mortgaged: very, very bad
I tend to agree with Mark.
Lower interest rates do not solve any economic problems, in fact on the offside (say a recession or a bubble) that many people don’t pay up on their loans it creates a huge moral and economic problem, because those people could inadvertently have sold essential body parts. A typical social reaction to this would be regulation.
Also there is a tremendous amount of Moral Hazard involved, if the body part is mortgaged to another person, the owner might be liable to take less care of it, thus reducing its market value and making such deals unviable. The monitoring costs would be quite large for any firm engaging in this activity. This might sound like a outlandish scenario, because one assumes that people are unwiling to hurt themselves… but then there are enough drug addicts and masochists who are not easily identified, who would adversely impact the market for body parts as collateral.
In sum:
1. Market for body parts is possible with quality grading agencies to determine the value of organs.
2. Body Parts as collateral is morally abhorant and likely economically unfeasible.
Ashish - I agree with your point totally.
Roshan - Abortion is an issue which derives most of its complications because of the controversy over where life begins. Personally, i believe that a woman has the complete right to abort her fetus, because letting the state’s decisions into the very body of individuals is too dangerous a precedent to set. (which unfortunately has already been set)
Mark and Gautam - I know that there are many fears about how such a market would turn up, but please consider that making organ sale legal will inevitably lead to the organs being used as collateral.
Consider two scenarios
Scenario MG - organ sale is legal, organ mortgage is not.
a person who is in desperate need of money sells his kidney and incurs the risk of living with one kidney only.
Scenario P - both are legal.
a person who is in desperate need of money weighs the two options in front of him - should he sell an eye, a kidney or take a loan from X-bank putting that very eye/kidney as collateral. In the second scenario he can choose the high risk (default + removal of organs + all associated court costs) + high reward (chance of repaying the loan and escaping without a cut on the body) scenario OR lower risk + lower reward scenario (sale of organs)
The second scenario allows for greater choice and greater flexibility. Like Ashish’s scenario of prior right of sale of body when dead, these increase the choice that people have.
I am essentially arguing for a principle here. If a person has a complete right of sale of organs, then there is no basis of preventing mortgage.
Prakash, you have got carried away by the logical elegance of the idea. I can imagine a world where organ sale is legal. I’d support that. Do you think that it will ever be politically possible to allow mortgage of organs? It is not a question of logic - it is a question of politics.
By way of comparison, take another example. Currently it is legal to sell your services. Is it legal to mortgage your services? i.e. can you promise that if you are unable to repay a debt you will work to pay it off? Nope. That would be selling yourself to slavery. I had asked the question more than a year back and no one gave me a convincing answer except that even the hardest core libertarians recognise some limits on the extent to which an individual may sign away his future rights.
Mortgaging my organ because I want money NOW seems to be a better option to me than giving it away outright in exchange of money.
Mortgaging would at least give me the chance that I would not have to lose the organ at all.
So if selling it off outright is OK, then why not mortgaging?
My 2 cents.
Ajit, all that is fine - but if a man is unable to pay a debt, are you going to get a policeman to arrest him, admit him to a jail hospital, get a doctor to anasthesise him and forcibly remove his organs in violation of his hippocratic oath?
Come on.. we libertarians have enough difficulty in getting people to accept our genuinely sensible proposals.
He will part with the organ willingly.
If he doesn’t, then I agree that putting him under the knife against his will would be a dicey thing. But at least I can put him in jail.
Now, does that sound more practical?
Refer back to Mark’s comments about debtors’ prisons - ain’t going to work out.
Hmm.
I fail to understand how you counter either of the two arguments against organ sale/mortgage (i.e exploitation and morality).
1. You ask what is gained by stopping the deal. The answer is simple. You have two choices. Allow all personal decisions, which may include selling yourself into slavery and anything better/worse than that. Or allow a governing agent to set limits in order to create what we call a civilized society. If you allow for the latter possibility, then it is only when there is widespread agreement that a civilized and evolved society (as people see it), is consistent with organ sale that it can be allowed. You seem to argue for legalization because you feel it is so consistent.
2. Your argument that morality is a ’subjective’ set of rules. Again, if I murder someone, can I argue for not being punished because I believe that to be consistent with my morality? The common answer to that is that my action was morally wrong because it affected another individual. That then seems to be a universal statement of morality, contradicting your claim that all morality is subjective.
3. ‘But what about the blackmarket?’ arguments are rather dicey because they presuppose the absence of possible improvement. Illegal organ sale is not as widespread a problem everywhere, certainly you cannot prove it cannot be reduced.
Anant,
I am personally not an anarchist(time may change this). I believe in a minimal government. I also understand that legalization of organ sale and mortgage will occur only when a large majority of the people involved will agree to the proposition.
But when will that day come? Only when someone places the idea on the table and debates and discussions begin. And in those discussions, I side with the arguments that are most consistent with a sense of the total ownership of self.
I do not believe in the total sale of self to slavery, though in the real world, worse things have happened. Please see the tiny note - parts of the self, not the self itself.
about morality and legality - A very simple introduction to libertarianism is the idea that LEGAL action is initiated only when there are violations of the rights of people. In your example, did the person whom you murdered, consent to it? Was he/she living in pain and asking to be relieved of it and were you his doctor pulling the plug? If you were, then i see no problem. But if he/she did not consent to dying, you have violated his right to the ownership of his self.
It has got nothing to do with what is conventionally called morality. It has to with commonly accepted definitions of rights of humans.
about the black market, experience has shown that when such transactions are legalized, in the absence of very high taxation, more people will transact in the open market rather than the black market. Experience comes to the closest thing to proof in social sciences.
where do i go to sell my own organs?
people talk of making money on this!
can/will you provide any info how i can make money on this.??
who to call/contact/where to go???