Sixpence: You can apply that to alot of what you write Miko. That my friend, is a two way street. I agree with you on the fact she should get her organ, if someone wants to donate one to save her life, she should get it. But under your 100% capitalism, people would get organs based on their wealth, not their need.
One significant correction. Not capitalism but freedom. Free market capitalism is just a natural result of a society based on freedom and security in body and property.
As for wealth, what's wrong with wealth anyway? In a free society wealth is accumulated by providing an equal or greater amount of value to other people. Once you benefit a lot of people greatly, you end up with a lot of wealth. Why should not one be able to spend that wealth as he sees fit?
Otherwise you would be correct in theory. A free society does not guaranee anyone equality of an outcome or even equality of opportunities. Only freedom to advance to the full expent of one's abilities by serving others in a coercion-free markertplace.
The wealthy could buy up all the organs and sell them to the highest bidder.
That is noncence. The supply increases with price, so as the need for organs increases the supply increases too.
Why would the wealthy buy up the organs and sell them to the highest bidder? Why would not the donors sell them to the highest bidders directly, through e-bay or whichever way they prefer?
Why would a poor but smart entrepreneur with not a cent of his own money borrow from the bank and establish a business brockering the organs - receiving tiny spread (kept low by competition) to benefit both donors and recepients?
The rich person could buy an organ for a poor recepient.
Whichever form it takes, we know that there would be more organs donated if the price reflects the market and more people saved - rich or poor. Poor people will still have insurance, or charity to buy the organs - just like they are not left without healthcare now.
With the current system the government bureaucrat decides who gets the organs, the supply is much lower than it could be - as any product would be if its price was kept at zero or even negative (in Canada a donor would apparently get not a reward for his organ but a legal punishment).
People die unncesarity - mostly poor who could have been helped through donations. Rich and politically-connected find the ways to get their organs.
So your ethics apparently says "Let many people - especially poor - die unnecesarily as long as there is no apparent benefit to the wealthy people that I envy".
You would rather see many innocent people hurt than see one wealthy person benefit. Though you do not mind if an exeedingly wealthy person, especially one willing to commit an illgal or immoral act (use black market where organs are not always voluntarily donated or avoid the laws of your country by having a procedure elsewhere) would benefit as long as you can pretend not to notice it.
You propose using violence an coercion to prevent people from making a mutually-beneficial transaction with no benefit whatsoever to anyone other than sparing your twisted sensibilities. Basically, you are willing to kill people by denying them life for your religious beliefs.
You would kill thousands of people every year in a slight hope that you would also kill a few wealthy men (or their children) in the process.
That is atrocious.
I would still be willing to discuss things with you despite your ghoulish inclinations, not being a narrow-minded exclusionary zealot, but if you don't want to - feel free to put me on ignore.
miko
