Comments on: Total Self-Ownership http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/ Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:41:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: ronny http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-4620 Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:30:53 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-4620 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??? 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???

]]> by: Ashish Hanwadikar http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2910 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2910 <a href="http://ashishniti.blogspot.com/2005/01/self-ownership-and-poverty.html" rel="nofollow">What about allowing unrestricted sale of body parts after the death?</a> What about allowing unrestricted sale of body parts after the death?

]]> by: Roshan Revankar http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2911 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2911 How would the "You own yourself totally." axiom apply to an issue like abortion? How would the “You own yourself totally.” axiom apply to an issue like abortion?

]]> by: Mark http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2912 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2912 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

]]> by: Mark http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2913 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2913 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

]]> by: Gautam http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2914 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2914 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. 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.

]]> by: Prakash http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2915 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2915 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. 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.

]]> by: Ravikiran Rao http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2916 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2916 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 <a href="http://www.yazadjal.com/mt/archives/000164.html" rel="nofollow">asked</a> 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. 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.

]]> by: Ajit http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2917 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2917 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. 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.

]]> by: Ravikiran Rao http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2918 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2005/01/29/total-self-ownership/#comment-2918 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. 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.

]]>