If you're dying in the desert, it actually is rational to accept a low price for your organs. The long term is irrelevant if you're about to die.
Pollution is more of a collective action problem. The individual harm you suffer if you drive a polluting car is small, but if you multiply all the people in L.A who suffer from it, it adds.
A society that even went to the extreme of completely privatizing education does not seem equivalent to one which kidnaps people and drops them in the desert. A lot of people would just not bother with education. And my understanding is that most unemployed people are not blood donors even now, with donation perfectly legal and compensated.
"Getting back to organs, is your ACTUAL objection that it's irrational or that it's non-euvoluntary?"
It's involuntary, it's also irrational in the long term (and on scales larger than one person) even though it's rational in the short term. There are lots of analogues to this in life: for example it's easy and fast, therefore rational in the short term to take the car to cross a small distance, but in the long run you'll get fat, unfit and die early and on a larger scale it causes pollution.
"I'm also not clear on what the biomarket analogue is for water-sellers that kidnap people and drop them in the desert."
Examples include a society that funds schools based on local taxes (so F-you when you're born in a poor neighboorhood), or a society that has made a ponzi scheme out of tuition of tertiary education, or a society where the rich bought most politicians and are externalizing the cost of pollution and subsidies.
Take money from someone who got lucky on the stock market or has a big trust fund and give it to a youth who was born poor and is motivated and qualified for an education. But there are also many other ways, such as reforming the justice system, criminal code, etc...
IMASBA, so you agree it is rational? And you seem to be referring to the "euvoluntary" concept I mentioned to Dan. Getting back to organs, is your ACTUAL objection that it's irrational or that it's non-euvoluntary? I'm also not clear on what the biomarket analogue is for water-sellers that kidnap people and drop them in the desert.
IMASBA, if you are in the desert about the die, then you really ought to pay whatever you can. I'd consider it irrational for you to say "No, organs are really worth more than that, so I'm just going to die instead" (I'm assuming away bargaining for the purpose of this hypothetical). To be more abstract, it is rational for the poor to accept lower prices. Declining marginal utility means a dollar is worth more (in terms of utility) to them (I'm assuming away the problems with interpersonal comparisons of utility that many Austrians would balk at). That is the utilitarian justification for redistribution.
VV, the minimum wage does have a collective-action aspect to it, the clear analogue here would be a price FLOOR on organs rather than a ban.
Right, 1 in 100 people would still make such stupid choices (those people just cannot take care of themselves and thus qualify for state nannyism). Basic income is not a panacea, but it does wonders for the other 99 people.
@TGGP:disqus It's not a matter of rationality. As I tried to point out in my comment about minimum wages, there are cases where restricting someone's options improves their outcome, even if they are rational agents.
The fact that PPP of Chinese workers has been growing doesn't change the fact that it still abysmal compared to that of their employers, or even Western workers
In fact, lots of Chinese people try to emigrate to Western countries, even illegally, while there isn't exactly a queue of Western people trying to immigrate to China.
You already effectively have a minimum income in places like Norway with the very generous welfare state. They still suffer from drug addiction and other equivalently stupid lifestyle choices.
Yeah. Although I have libertarian tendencies this is the part where I believe libertarianism breaks down. Hard core libertarians would say that it's an agreed upon deal with no coercion simply because both parties agreed upon a trade. Most normal humans would consider it to be an unfair trade, however which has been proven over and over in psych experiments and results in punishment for the cheater.
Although I don't like the idea of a basic income (I'd prefer subsidized education with living expenses paid and then going out into the economy) I agree with the basic stance of them having better choices if they have options.
If you're dying in the desert, it actually is rational to accept a low price for your organs. The long term is irrelevant if you're about to die.
Pollution is more of a collective action problem. The individual harm you suffer if you drive a polluting car is small, but if you multiply all the people in L.A who suffer from it, it adds.
A society that even went to the extreme of completely privatizing education does not seem equivalent to one which kidnaps people and drops them in the desert. A lot of people would just not bother with education. And my understanding is that most unemployed people are not blood donors even now, with donation perfectly legal and compensated.
"Getting back to organs, is your ACTUAL objection that it's irrational or that it's non-euvoluntary?"
It's involuntary, it's also irrational in the long term (and on scales larger than one person) even though it's rational in the short term. There are lots of analogues to this in life: for example it's easy and fast, therefore rational in the short term to take the car to cross a small distance, but in the long run you'll get fat, unfit and die early and on a larger scale it causes pollution.
"I'm also not clear on what the biomarket analogue is for water-sellers that kidnap people and drop them in the desert."
Examples include a society that funds schools based on local taxes (so F-you when you're born in a poor neighboorhood), or a society that has made a ponzi scheme out of tuition of tertiary education, or a society where the rich bought most politicians and are externalizing the cost of pollution and subsidies.
(Who among us doing this taking is a mystery best passed over in silence)
Hardly! Robin's theory is that the state is (in essence) the means by which resources are redistributed: by popular coalitions.
Take money from someone who got lucky on the stock market or has a big trust fund and give it to a youth who was born poor and is motivated and qualified for an education. But there are also many other ways, such as reforming the justice system, criminal code, etc...
Or maybe start advocating for societal changes so people won't get into the position of being so desperate anymore...
IMASBA, so you agree it is rational? And you seem to be referring to the "euvoluntary" concept I mentioned to Dan. Getting back to organs, is your ACTUAL objection that it's irrational or that it's non-euvoluntary? I'm also not clear on what the biomarket analogue is for water-sellers that kidnap people and drop them in the desert.
It is rational at that moment, but not what most people would call voluntary, especially not when water bottle sellers put kids in the desert.
Dan Browne, Mike Munger has a term for what you're talking about: "euvoluntary".
IMASBA, if you are in the desert about the die, then you really ought to pay whatever you can. I'd consider it irrational for you to say "No, organs are really worth more than that, so I'm just going to die instead" (I'm assuming away bargaining for the purpose of this hypothetical). To be more abstract, it is rational for the poor to accept lower prices. Declining marginal utility means a dollar is worth more (in terms of utility) to them (I'm assuming away the problems with interpersonal comparisons of utility that many Austrians would balk at). That is the utilitarian justification for redistribution.
VV, the minimum wage does have a collective-action aspect to it, the clear analogue here would be a price FLOOR on organs rather than a ban.
Right, 1 in 100 people would still make such stupid choices (those people just cannot take care of themselves and thus qualify for state nannyism). Basic income is not a panacea, but it does wonders for the other 99 people.
@TGGP:disqus It's not a matter of rationality. As I tried to point out in my comment about minimum wages, there are cases where restricting someone's options improves their outcome, even if they are rational agents.
@dan_browne:disqus
The fact that PPP of Chinese workers has been growing doesn't change the fact that it still abysmal compared to that of their employers, or even Western workers
(that's the chart for the US: http://research.stlouisfed....
In fact, lots of Chinese people try to emigrate to Western countries, even illegally, while there isn't exactly a queue of Western people trying to immigrate to China.
Therefore, my point stands.
It would simply shift desperate choices into the category of "stupid choices". Like selling your kidney for an ipad.
You already effectively have a minimum income in places like Norway with the very generous welfare state. They still suffer from drug addiction and other equivalently stupid lifestyle choices.
Yeah. Although I have libertarian tendencies this is the part where I believe libertarianism breaks down. Hard core libertarians would say that it's an agreed upon deal with no coercion simply because both parties agreed upon a trade. Most normal humans would consider it to be an unfair trade, however which has been proven over and over in psych experiments and results in punishment for the cheater.
Although I don't like the idea of a basic income (I'd prefer subsidized education with living expenses paid and then going out into the economy) I agree with the basic stance of them having better choices if they have options.