RoR: Forum

Jordan,

"You think they had some other motive?"

Different congressmen, different motives - I don't know what the individual motives were, or the level of their philosophical understanding. Doesn't matter.

Post 21

Friday, August 14, 2009 - 11:53am

Ted,

I guess I'm saying that I suspect their irrationality. I can't say I entirely endorse simply donating live organs either, although I will respect those motives more because it is their wish, not just an act of desperation.

And, specifically, I am talking about organs, not renewable products of our bodily processes - so hair, blood, sperms, eggs, nail clippings & tummy lint are all good to go without any further ado. Mark-em up and sell 'em.

Our organs (including skin,face) are intrinsically tied to our health and well being though. Loss of these involve far greater risk. These cannot be viewed as commodities. One cannot go down the street, when personal finances are better, and just pick up a replacement.

Steve,

Much like casino gambling, while I personally think we are worse off for it, I'll defend people's rights to participate. I don't think organ sales could be a good idea unless there are reasonable and fair regulations to protect the health of the donors and recipients. Current practices for kidneys, I think, could serve as a guideline. Without regulatory guidelines, we are only talking about self-mutilation, to put it harshly.

I should probably mention that my wife has been through this process - as a donor. She volunteered, and went through the extensive testing, when her sister was seriously ill. Although she qualified, she was nevertheless incompatible with her sister. Another volunteer donor (sister's daughter-in-law) stepped up, which saved her sister. Having already gone through all the tests, this kindness moved her to become an 'anonymous donor'. We later met the young man, whose life it saved (he'd just picked out a suit for his funeral, when called), and understand since he's been able to put his life back together.

I was not in favor of my wife being a donor, nor were her friends. However, we all respected her wishes, and did not discourage her. Importantly, she was well informed, carefully tested and prepared for the process. Plus they still conduct annual tests to assure she has continued to do well since. Their attention to her welfare is the main reason I did not try to object.

jt

Post 22

Friday, August 14, 2009 - 1:31pm

Fair enough, Steve.

jt,

I sympathize with your view. I want to echo Teresa's post 17 -- that there may be a difference between the ethics and politics of the issue. It might help to identify under what circumstances it's unethical to sell or buy another's vital organs. But even if you do identify those circumstances, you still have to show how they give rise to a violation of the non-initiation of force principle. Otherwise, Objectivists aren't going to budget on the politics of the issue.

Jordan

Post 23

Friday, August 14, 2009 - 3:08pm

"It presupposes someone so lacking in self esteem, that they are unable to see past the immediate rewards, to the long term health consequences."

Is being unable to see past the immediate rewards to the long term health consequences sufficient justification for legislation, Jay? If so, we better all buckle up.

"The moment we start treating body parts like commodities, we are undervaluing ourselves, and it will be natural to those who get into that 'trade' to discount us as no more valuable than any other commodity. "

Undervalueing ourselves according to whom? Who determines the national human life valuation standard? It would not be natural for those in the trade of human biomaterials to "discount us" as no more valuable than any other commodity. It would be natural for those involved in the trade to pay what the supplier and himself deems acceptable, and charge what the market would bear. Not to mention every profession on earth involves possible risks involved in the evaluation of the appropriate compensation for work performed. Should noone be allowed to work in dangerous fields because being paid to perform dangerous work implies that the value of your life is somehow being related to some sort of commodity? Would volunteering to work an oil rig or fishing boat be the only ethical way to staff such positions? Valiant heros bringing energy and sustenance to the masses at great risk for no profit, as opposed to the heinous degradation of allowing them to accept mere money in payment for such work?

Post 24

Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 4:06am

quote
Are we sure that we want our bodies or body parts to be looked upon as commodities? If someone said, " I don't like my left hand, I think I'm going to cut it off", responsible people would do their best to prevent it, and to get that person psychological help.

By this logic, you could also object to selling our labor on the grounds that our lives might be looked upon as commodities, i.e., self ownership is slavery.

BTW: Why do you conflate the choice of a person to sell a body part with�an�insane�desire to dismember one's self?�

quote
Frankly, I don't see the concept "I need some money, so I'll sell one of my body parts" any more sane. It presupposes someone so lacking in self esteem, that they are unable to see past the immediate rewards, to the long term health consequences.

�What if the long term health consequences of not getting paid for your body part are far more dire than the loss of that part?

How about the various risks involved in work, sports and hobbies?

quote
On the other side of the argument, there are cases where someone may want to donate an organ to a loved one (or for whatever reason). There are cases - e.g. kidney donors - where a person can survive quite well with just one of a set of organs. These cases involve months of testing to assure that the donor is healthy enough to survive well with the one kidney. The donor is counseled and well informed about all the ramifications of their decision. Plus the donor is given immediate priority should their remaining organ start to fail. All in all, it is done responsibly - the organ is not treated like a commodity, or the body like a parts shop.

So it's OK for the state to allow people to engage in activities that might be dangerous, so long as there's no "evil"�profit motive and�so long as it's micromanaged by state regulations?

(Edited by Mark Ian Uzick on 8/15, 6:42am)

Post 25

Saturday, August 15, 2009 - 12:15pm

Mark:

Good analyses. You obviously hit a high note with the readers of this forum.

Welcome.

Sam

Post 26

Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 2:46am

Thanks!

It's good to meet you Sam.

Mark

Post 27

Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 10:15am

Perhaps I'm looking at this from an emotional perspective, but taking your points - well made - I see it as a choice between two forms of abuse. Without rules, there will unquestionably be serious abuses. With rules, we open ourselves to other abuses.

It is like asking a man whether he'd prefer to be executed by a hunting arrow or a high caliber rifle. There appears no good answer.

jt

Post 28

Sunday, August 16, 2009 - 12:19pm

Two forms of abuse? As in between having the choice to potentially abuse oneself or affirming that only the state has the right of abuse over a person.

Your metaphor is broken, Jay. It isn't a die/die scenario. It isn't "would you care to die by gun A or gun B" but "How about you fellas let me hold the gun, since my life is the one we're discussing".

Emotion is not a method of cognition in any endeavor, but is exponentially more dangerous when used to restrict others actions based on what you fear they'll do to themselves if allowed control over their own lives.

Post 29

Monday, August 17, 2009 - 4:35am

In any contractual agreement, there are always rules and each individual has personal rules of conduct. Rules imposed by the fiat of the state, without the consent of the actual parties involved, are destructive of legitimate rules and a negation of legitimate authority.

What abuses are you speaking of? Is it the self abuse of an individual, as perceived of by some busybody, that we should give up our right to better or even save our lives, in order to prevent?

Ryan is correct about the dangers of letting emotion and prejudice over rule reason.

Post 30

Monday, August 17, 2009 - 1:45pm

Mark,

You said, "Rules imposed by the fiat of the state, without the consent of the actual parties involved, are destructive of legitimate rules and a negation of legitimate authority."

Any rule or action which is a legitimate defense or support of an individual right is valid even if it comes from a state. Any rule which acted upon would result in the violation of an individual right is morally wrong and should be illegal - state or no state.

Post 31

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 2:54am

Mark,

You said, "Rules imposed by the fiat of the state, without the consent of the actual parties involved, are destructive of legitimate rules and a negation of legitimate authority."

Any rule or action which is a legitimate defense or support of an individual right is valid even if it comes from a state. Any rule which acted upon would result in the violation of an individual right is morally wrong and should be illegal - state or no state.

As in rules like victimless crime laws that punish activities with no victims? For example: laws prohibiting competition with governing agencies in the provision of their services.

I agree that when, for example, the state usurps the legitimate authority of individuals to grow and distribute food, it become the responsibility of the state to ensure that its subjects are well fed.

By the same logic, when the state usurps the legitimate authority of individuals to protect their rights, it become the responsibility of the state to ensure that its subject's rights are protected.

The state typically fails to do a good job of either of these things and, in the second example, the absurdity of expecting an agency to be able to protect individual right via their destruction should be obvious.

Post 32

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 7:57am

Mark,
Design a constitution and a republic where the slavering masses cannot vote themselves "rights" to other peoples property and their noses into other peoples business. In other words, how do we get to where you want to be from here?

Post 33

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 8:37am

Mark,
Design a constitution and a republic where the slavering masses cannot vote themselves "rights" to other peoples property and their noses into other peoples business. In other words, how do we get to where you want to be from here?

It cannot be done.

I've already addressed this issue in the other thread. I don't know where you stand, but I'll be happy, either for your support or to debate you over there:

http://rebirthofreason.com/cgi-bin/SHQ/SHQ_FirstUnread.cgi?Function=FirstUnread&Board=2&Thread=2160

Post 34

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 11:43am

Mark,

Victimless crimes do not constitute a violation of individual rights and there should be no laws of that sort - I suspect that you already know that - so why do you throw it out there? To paint me as a supporter of violating the rights of others... an ad hominem attack?

You said, "I agree that when, for example, the state usurps the legitimate authority of individuals to grow and distribute food, it become the responsibility of the state to ensure that its subjects are well fed."

I don't know who you are agreeing with - certainly not me. I do not believe that the state has the right to usurp the authority of individuals to grow and distribute food. I also do not believe that such a wrong act creates any obligation upon the state to do anything but cease its interference. Your attempt to equate the initiation of violence and absence of a single set of laws for a given jurisdiction with a way to protect individual rights is absurd. A valid state's defense of individual rights is never in conflict with an individual's self-defense of individual rights.

Advocates of anarchy will always attempt to pretend that there can be a market place for violence and see no difference between that and markets for voluntary exchange. They will continue to pretend that it makes sense to say you can have a FREE market without a set of laws protecting individual rights. They will forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy self-protection agencies and such, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that minarchy could never be possible.

Post 35

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 10:17pm

Victimless crimes do not constitute a violation of individual rights and there should be no laws of that sort - I suspect that you already know that - so why do you throw it out there? To paint me as a supporter of violating the rights of others... an ad hominem attack?

Are you serious? Do you mean to say that you cannot recognise an argument by analogy? The only implication here is that we agree about victimless crimes in general, but that the minarchists make exceptions to this principle to support their belief in the necessity of the state. It's this idea of a "necessary evil" that I take exception to.

Interpreting an attack on one's beliefs as a personal attack is the litmus test of dogmatism.

I also do not believe that such a wrong act creates any obligation upon the state to do anything but cease its interference.

So when the state expropriates our means to feed ourselves, it has no obligation to keep us from starvation while we wait for it to cease its interference?

Your attempt to equate the initiation of violence and absence of a single set of laws for a given jurisdiction with a way to protect individual rights is absurd. A valid state's defense of individual rights is never in conflict with an individual's self-defense of individual rights.

So an enterprise that monopolizes a market by means of threats and violence, as opposed to the consent of its clients, is morally valid, so long as it protects the remaining rights of its subjects? This is the old "The end justifies the means." argument.

Advocates of anarchy will always attempt to pretend that there can be a market place for violence and see no difference between that and markets for voluntary exchange. They will continue to pretend that it makes sense to say you can have a FREE market without a set of laws protecting individual rights. They will forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy self-protection agencies and such, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that minarchy could never be possible.

The advocacy of legitimate government does not make me an anarchist.

"The reality is that the state, as it limits or destroys the legitimate government of a civilized society, substituting government by the consent of the individuals that are governed with fiat law, creates chaos, destruction of businesses and people's dreams, violence, terrorism and war, culminating in its own failure and collapse, is the essence of anarchy."

To socialists, the idea that the complexities of the production and distribution of necessities could be accomplished without regulatory supervision of the state must seem to them as much a fantasy as free market civil government does to minarchists.

Your arguments are the classic statist dismissal of the free market. If I make them broader, they go like this:

Free market advocates forever persist in describing in painful detail the workings of fantasy enterprises and their infinitely intricate relationships between themselves and the final consumer, envisioning a make-believe utopia while denying with bald assertions that successful socialism could never be possible.

Post 36

Wednesday, August 19, 2009 - 10:57pm

Mark,

You said, "It's this idea of a 'necessary evil' that I take exception to."

That is NOT my idea. I don't see it as an evil at all. Minarchy is the best possible solution. We take the metaphysical conditions of human existence and translate them into the ethical principles we call individual rights. Those rights are then translated into the limits of law we call the constitution which then becomes the standard for creation of laws - and that is minarchy.
-------------

You said, "Interpreting an attack on one's beliefs as a personal attack is the litmus test of dogmatism."

Your personal attacks included calling me a liar. That IS personal.
-------------

I have never advocated expropriation. Don't put your words into my mouth.
-------------

You said, "So an enterprise that monopolizes a market by means of threats and violence, as opposed to the consent of its clients, is morally valid, so long as it protects the remaining rights of its subjects? This is the old 'The end justifies the means.' argument."

The "market" you are talking about is the use of force. And there is NO monopoly since everyone is still free to use force to defend themselves. There is a monopoly on the law, like there is only one constitution, like there is just one set of individual rights - and that seems to be what irks anarchists who want anyone to be able to make up their own laws.
------------

You said, "The advocacy of legitimate government does not make me an anarchist."

It is the advocacy of NO state that makes you an anarchist.
------------

Minarchy IS a legitimate form of government - it is the only kind of state that is legitimate since it does not violate individual rights and it creates an entire environment for protecting individual rights. (People still have the right of self-defense.) Without minarchy there is no single set of laws to define what actions are violations of individual rights.

Post 37

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 4:34am

Mark,

You said, "It's this idea of a 'necessary evil' that I take exception to."

That is NOT my idea. I don't see it as an evil at all. Minarchy is the best possible solution. We take the metaphysical conditions of human existence and translate them into the ethical principles we call individual rights. Those rights are then translated into the limits of law we call the constitution which then becomes the standard for creation of laws - and that is minarchy.

As I explained:

"A minimal state maintains a monopoly on courts, police, defense and travel over its borders and maintains this monopoly by using force against anyone, even if he has harmed no one, that defies this monopoly.

People are forced to pay for these services, whether they want them or not. Even if taxes are made "voluntary", if someone believes they are too high or that the services offered are poorly rendered or corrupt, they must pay them or live under enforced civil anarchy, as alternative civil government is suppressed."

So your support of the state either implies that:

1. the initiation of force is not evil
or that
2. the state is a necessary evil.

You can't have it both ways.

You said, "Interpreting an attack on one's beliefs as a personal attack is the litmus test of dogmatism."

Your personal attacks included calling me a liar. That IS personal.

I only pointed out, with evidence to back my assertion, one example of a lie. I could be mistaken; maybe you simply forgot what I wrote, but you posted a quote, which proves that you had just come back from my post and used a small part of it, out of context, to make a claim that was deceptive.

In any case, I said you lied, but I didn't call you a liar. For all I know, if you did intentionally lie, it may be the first time that you ever did so. Saying so is either a mistake or a self judgment.

The other time that I used the word I wrote: "Every definition here, makes a lie of your claim." "Lie", used in this context, clearly means: an inaccurate or false statement. As to your intentions, only you know, but protesting too much can only cause suspicion.

I have never advocated expropriation. Don't put your words into my mouth.

I never even came close to saying that!- so you have used the admonition to not put words in your mouth as a means of putting words in my mouth! I'll bet that AR had an expression for that kind of practice!

The "market" you are talking about is the use of force. And there is NO monopoly since everyone is still free to use force to defend themselves. There is a monopoly on the law, like there is only one constitution, like there is just one set of individual rights - and that seems to be what irks anarchists who want anyone to be able to make up their own laws.

Do you realise that the implication of this statement is that there should be only one world government?

You said, "The advocacy of legitimate government does not make me an anarchist."

It is the advocacy of NO state that makes you an anarchist.

I proved you wrong on this, yet you repeat it like a mantra. This is the kind of response that, from experience, I've come to expect from debating with theists and anarchists.

Don't just repeat things. Either explain why words don't really mean what they mean; that you can simply make up new definitions (You can.) that automatically void all other definitions (You can't.) or give up this "new-speak". It doesn't help your case.

Post 38

Thursday, August 20, 2009 - 7:53am

Mark,

The defining element of your argument is the that even a minarchy is too much state, and that all advocacy for a state is anarchy. It is dishonest to play word games like that and to accuse those who believe in minarchy of being anarchists. That is a cheap rhetorical trick.

The essence of your 'reasoning' is that people should be allowed the choice of police, courts, laws, etc., that are based upon something other than individual rights. That is the monopoly you rail against - individual rights.

I'm filled with disgust at the twisting of logic and the dishonesty of arguments used by anarchists who hijack the concept of individual rights to attack the structures required to support those rights. I have no respect for someone who hasn't the honesty to be an anarchist openly. And I'm saddened at what has been done to the Libertarian political movement by anarchists.

I have no further interest in replying to any of your posts.

Post 39

Saturday, August 22, 2009 - 12:51am