I see what you're saying, but the government does have some say in how federal money can be used. I wonder if they could prevent someone from exchanging their organs for, say, three pounds of crab legs or something besides federal reserve notes. It sounds like a stupid question at first...

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

Is bartering for organs currently legal? I don't know. Seriously.

__________________
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.

Yea, I don't know, either. Nor am I sure how to phrase it into a google search to find out.

__________________
"Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn’t want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first on my to-do list"
-Gnarls Barkley, "Going On" lyrics

But what makes you think the government should be allowed to ban others from selling their body? Why do you think the government should have more of a say over what happens to their body than they do?Individual personal freedom as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else. For instance, I should be allowed to shoot deer, but not if the bullet also hits some guy walking near it on public property.Then those voters are free to avoid buying organs from those nations.I really don't know if a libertarian can debate that way. IMO the US is way too fucked up to decide anything.

__________________
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.

Because the government represents society and thus has a say in what is detrimental to society in general. IMO, "we the people" (as a group) have the right to place some restrictions on our own freedoms (SOME of those freedoms are inviolate, being protected by the Constitution, but not all of them). We, as the people, can do this for the benefit the people.
We can institute bans and regulations not only to protect society in general from degrading, but also to protect ourselves.

For example, if I have a fit and decide to start sawing off my own limbs, I want the government to be able to throw me in a straight jacket and put me in a padded cell before I permanently maim myself.
In the scenario, I for one am willing to see the individuals freedom disregarded for "his own good" and for the good of society that won't be plagued by a limbless, suffering guy.
But, as I said, there are situations in which I don't consider individual freedom to be the highest good.

I freely admit that you are a shade more libertarian than I am. (Though I agree with you about the deer.)


In this country they're also free to create a ban that keeps anyone from buying organs from those nations. Isn't democracy something!

Well that kinda makes the debate pointless, doesn't it?

I don't know if it should be legal or not. But it occurred to me that legal organ sales could impact prostitution laws. The most cogent argument against the decriminalization of prostitution is that prostitution and other categories of sex work are inherently exploitative. If an equally exploitative trade in organs was allowed it would make prostitution laws very difficult to maintain. It wouldn't make any difference to me but I can imagine there are people who would favor the selling of organs for humanitarian reasons but might balk at the possibility of also opening the door to legal prostitution.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

I'm all for people being able to personally commit themselves. Just don't commit others for what YOU think isn't good for them.It's something which you wish to use for harmful and selfish reasons in this case.

__________________
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.

Which should be legal anyway.I'm sure there are those idiots, also.

__________________
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.

No argument from me.

It might be more accurate to say there are people who think there are things more important than the freedom to sell stuff. I'm not sure I agree with them on prostitution but I don't consider those who try to protect the weakest parts of our society idiots.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Protect them from what? Decisions that they think are good, but those idiots think are bad?

__________________
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 won't (and legally can't) commit anyone for what I think isn't good for them.
However, society as a whole legally can commit someone for what society deems bad for them if it rises to a certain level of self-harm. "A danger to himself" is, I believe, the phrase used in such circumstances.

Are you seriously suggesting that it should be unlawful to restrain a man in the midst of mutilating himself?

Harmful and selfish?
What are we talking about here? The self-mutilator or selling organs?
And how precisely is my position either "harmful" or "selfish".
Presumptuous, maybe.

A totally stupid phrase, since what is harmful and what is not depends on what that person thinks of it.Yes. Why is it your business what he does to himself?If you restrain people from harming themselves with the excuse that it is good for society, and therefore good for yourself, you are stopping him from doing something he wants to do with himself because you want him to be like he was for yourself. Selfishness.

__________________
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.

You can barter another organ for an organ. I could give a kidney for your brother on the condition that you give a slab of your liver to my cousin, in other words. In fact, thus far it seems the most effective way of ensuring organs being found.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

I disagree. An insane person or someone under the influence of drugs or someone suffering from severe depression may be unable to recognize what is and is not harmful to themselves.

I hope that if I ever reach the point of trying to do myself severe physical harm that someone will care enough to come along and stop me.

But I respect your right to have another opinion.

Probably very little; I suppose it depends on whether he's a friend, neighbor of family member, though I would say still some interest exists as a fellow citizen and human.

However, more to the point, I support the right of people to help one another even when it isn't any of their business.
And even when the person in question is not mentally capable of recognizing that he has been helped.

Yes, clearly stopping that hypothetical guy from sawing off his own arms and legs in a crazed fit would be a selfish and evil thing to do...

Can I trade an organ for a pack of gum if I wanted to?

__________________
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.