That is a very stupid argument. You might as well ban back-breaking and physical jobs because the poor are more likely to take them.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

That's just silly. Why ban people from doing things to prevent them from making what you think are bad decisions? Why not ban people from buying cars without oversight from a car expert to make sure they aren't ripped off? If you are concerned about the poor, you might as well ban menial and backbreaking jobs, because the poor will usually take them.Why not?I don't think the state or any government should be by default responsible for any health care.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

It's not the same as saying the government owns your body. You can do whatever the hell you want to do with your organs, you just can't exchange them for government regulated currency. Just because someone forbids you to sell something, doesn't mean the one forbidding it owns it. That would mean the government owns everyone's children and ebay owns my collection of soiled panties.

I agree with the former, but I don't understand the latter.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

As in, you can't sell your children, but that doesn't mean the government owns them. You can't sell sex, but that doesn't mean the government owns our libidos. The last one was joke, as ebay forbids people from selling soiled panties....which doesn't mean they own them.

That would be because the children are their own property, not because the they are the government's property.I think it means they do, since the libido is your property and you should be able to sell it.eBay is a private group. It doesn't forbid you from selling your soiled panties, it refuses to help sell them.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Actually, my argument was the exact opposite of what you seem to think it was. I'm not saying it isn't right for poor people to sell their organs, I'm saying it isn't right to set up a market society that will never allow poor people to receive organs unless they are from family members.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

You could make an argument that children are the property of their parents..
I agree you should be able to sell it, but I disagree that it means it's the government's property.
Yes...that's where the 'joke' part comes in.

Because I don't consider people making stupid decisions about cars or people working menial labor jobs as detrimental to society as people selling off their internal organs for cash.
I think people should be free to be ignorant, gullible and stupid, but only up to a point. IMO (and apparently in the opinion of lawmakers) allowing the sell of human organs would have excessively determental effects on society, thus I have no problem with the ban.
I feel the same way about the restrictions on child labor.

I should think that would be obvious: I think we should work hard to avoid supporting anyone who coercively takes organs out of other people.

And yet they are, so that's the system we have to work with.

Poor already can't get plenty of things. Expensive cars and homes are some of those.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

I probably could, but I won't. What is your point?If you can't sell something that belongs to do you, wouldn't that mean the government sort of controls it?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

But why should something that is detrimental to society be banned? I think alcohol is detrimental to society. Ban it?I think this is the problem. We have a key fundamental disagreement. You place government over society. I don't.But if they are from another nation, who really cares? It's not like we are pouring cash into their economy for free just to make sure they continue oppressing people.That's silly. I think all irrational aspects of government should be removed, not to cater to some irrational ones.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

The point was that just because you can't sell something doesn't mean that the government owns it...
Not really. If the government really 'controlled' it, then people wouldn't still be selling sex every day. The government doesn't like it, but they hardly control it.

Some things cannot be sold because you don't own them in the first place, such as children. But you do own your organs, so if the government doesn't allow their sale, then it is in a sense owning it. So you are right. Just because you can't sell something, doesn't mean the government owns it. However, if you should be allowed to own it, and you can't sell it, then the government does believe it should own it.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Some have certainly tried, though IMO it was a mistake.
I place the level of detriment very high before I condone a government ban. Alcohol doesn't nearly reach that level. Organ selling does, IMO.

I think you're right about the fundamental disagreement, but wrong about the terminology.
In a democratic system, government IS society (with a few dampeners and checks on it).
I think our difference is that I don't consider absolute personal freedom to be the highest good, and (in what I consider to be extreme situations) I'm willing to impinge some degrees of personal freedom for "the greater good" or even for the good of the individual.
If I read you correctly, then you believe individual personal freedom is the highest goal, trumping everything else.

I care.
And I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the majority of voters agree with me and would be willing to ban imports of organs from nations where they could be "farmed" or stolen from the general populace.

Well, that's all well and good. But you should distinguish whether or not you're talking about changing one aspect of the system (i.e. just adding the ability to sell organs) or changing many or, for that matter, talking about some completely different hypothetical system.
If we're going to debate removing the ban on organ sales in this country at this time we must deal with the fact that the government does pay for a considerable amount of health care.
Whether or not that should also be changed is another debate.