Category Archives: charity

Free Markets Are a Prerequisite for Art and Charity

Catching up on some of the news this week.  Aside from the hilarious, abysmal failure of Obamacare Lite (aka the American Health Care Act (AHCA), the budget has been getting a lot of publicity.  I realize some of my readers are not number crunchers, so for this post, I’ll refrain from digging into those details of the budget plan and focus more on the qualitative aspects.  (No promises for future posts. 😉 )  

Center Stage with the liberal Left this week is PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Meals on Wheels.  From some of the memes and posts you’ve been reading, undoubtedly you know that Humanity as a whole is about to descend into a Dark Age.  Elderly veterans will be callously left to starve.  Our great-grandchildren will have to read about Art and Educational Programming in history books because without Government support, there will be none.

That is if our great-grandchildren are actually reading.  And reading history books.  

Maybe they’ll learn about it on YouTube.  (Wait, isn’t that art?  I digress.)  

Without digging into numbers as promised, I’ll simply mention that the Left loves to point out these programs are tiny budget considerations compared to, say, Social Security or Medicare or the Military policing the world (all of which I’m also in favor of slashing).  But if I’m bleeding trillions of dollars a year, spending money we don’t have and borrowing more, then yeah, I’m looking for every opportunity to save a buck.  Guess that makes me heartless and greedy.

Think about the government slush fund created to support the broad and nebulous space known as Art.  Is all Art good and worthy of our combined, financial support?  To those that defend the NEA and PBS, does it matter where the money goes, just as long as it is labeled as “Art”?  I’ve been around musicians, graphic artists, videographers, photographers, sculptors, painters, poets, dancers, writers, and actors for most of my life.  I can tell you without hesitation that Artists are some of the most critical people I know.  They love to rip into other artists calling them Hacks, Attention Whores, Corporate Shills, Sell Outs and Wannabes.  If they’re being honest, they will even admit Nickelback isn’t as good as Buddy Guy.

For over half a century, our tax dollars have been taken from us for a committee to decide which Art should be supported.  So, let’s say you’re an artist/entrepreneur trying to open a small local gallery in Chicago.  You don’t have a large staff, and you’re barely able to keep your doors open.  You then learn that the Art Institute of Chicago received, yet again, another $20,000 grant from the NEA, despite the fact that they have a budget of tens of millions of dollars and support from corporate and private philanthropists from all over the world.  In fact, in their 2016 Financial Statements, the Art Institute of Chicago declared they had over $70 million in Net Contributions Receivable. (Sorry, numbers, I know.)  

Is this acceptable to you artists and supporters of Art?  In economics, we call these Rent Seekers.  Basically, those that are rewarded are not necessarily the best, the purest, or even the most popular.  The reward goes to those that can successfully navigate the system.  If you’ve got lots of money already and can hire dedicated staff to apply for grants and government funding, chances are you will reap the rewards.  

This is also one of the reasons why you can easily find countless examples on the web of questionable spending of public funds in the name of “Art” — things like almost a half million dollars for medieval smells museums and $100k for Shakespear without Words.  

Then there’s Meals on Wheels, as mentioned above.  Their funding is also on the proverbial chopping block.  Or so that’s what we’ve been led to believe from the headlines and memes.  In fact, less than 3% of their operating budget comes from federal grants.  

Again, numbers.

But what is the solution then?  Without Government stealing from everyone, creating slush funds with zero accountability, and rewarding organizations and artists with the means and knowledge to navigate the grant writing maze game?  

The Free Market, of course.  

Take, for example, this blurb from the NEA’s own website.  

Capture

So now, the NEA is an investment vehicle?  If $9 of private investment for the arts is voluntarily given by individuals and organizations, why do we need to steal the last dollar of $10?  Can’t those $9 be used to create catalysts for communities, productive jobs, net adds to GDP, and revitalize communities?  Or is there something magical about that federal $1 bill.  (#fungibility) 

Just can’t seem to get away from numbers, can I?  

The Free Market encourages individuals to support Art in all of its glorious shapes and sizes based on our preferences.  In fact, more people voluntarily support the arts, despite the theft that government practices.  If they had more disposal income to allocate, support for the arts would grow even further.  George F Will wrote in the Washington Post

Americans’ voluntary contributions to arts organizations (“arts/culture/humanities” institutions reaped $17 billion in 2015) dwarf the NEA’s subventions, which would be replaced if those who actually use the organizations — many of them supported by state and local government arts councils — were as enthusiastic about them as they claim to be. The idea that the arts will wither away if the NEA goes away is risible.

A bit dated, but still relevant, the Heritage Foundation wrote that the NEA actually discourages charitable gifts to the Arts.  

But where’s the assurance that people would freely fill the void if the government safety blanket is removed?  Look no further than Meals on Wheels.  When the news was announced that the proposed budget cuts might impact 3% of their existing budget, those silly fools John and Jane Q. Public donated 50 TIMES their normal rate and 5 TIMES as many volunteers stepped forward to get their hands dirty and work at Meals On Wheels.  

How is that possible without the threats of government coercion?  Why would anyone voluntarily support the things that matter to them without the use of force?

It’s a mystery, to be sure, what makes people act so irrationally.  

But let me add one other consideration to this topic which I had alluded to in my post title.  Milton Freedman wrote in his book “Free to Choose” that voluntary exchange is a necessary condition for both prosperity and freedom.  It’s not a guarantee of prosperity and freedom.  But is a necessary prerequisite.  

I’ll add my own variation of Milton’s idea to say that in order for the Arts and Charity to not only survive but to thrive, voluntary exchange or Free Markets are a necessary prerequisite.  If arts and charity were supported more and more by coerced, government participation rather than individual choice, eventually Government will determine what are acceptable forms of art and what causes are worthy of “charitable” support.  As I pointed out above, most likely this road leads to successful Rent Seekers and the Politically Connected grabbing up all of the attention and resources.

Imagine if Trump’s administration was given the reigns to decide not only which forms of art and charity are worthy of support but also if he could decide which forms are ALLOWED.  What if Obama was given that amount of power?  Or John McCain or Hillary or Chad Kroeger of Nickelback?  The Free Market is the single greatest protector of the Arts and Charity because individuals can decide which of the countless choices available should be rewarded with our support, both financially and otherwise.  

The government should not be in the business of deciding which forms of Art and Charity are acceptable or not.


Advertisements

The U.S. Should Open its Immigration, but . . .

As promised, here’s my post on the topic of US Immigration. If you haven’t done so already, you should check out the 2 opposing views posted by Nathan Smith and A.M. Fantini on Fee.org which I will reference throughout this post. Keep in mind that both Smith and Fantini are examining US Immigration from a Libertarian perspective which is all the more reason why I’m fascinated with the debate.

Here’s basically what it comes down to:

On the one hand, Smith argues that opening up Immigration, including to those here already illegally, would create economic prosperity for all. Not only does the current system create an enormous amount of waste, red tape, totally inconsistent / totally unenforceable set of subjective rules, but it also arbitrarily destroys families here illegally, incarcerating or deporting mostly non-violent “criminals” from their families. Opening up immigration would increase PAID demand for goods and services, potential tax revenues (if you support taxation, which I do not), and would create a huge windfall of growth for our economy – some conservative estimates being a 2x GDP multiplier. Smith also argues that opening immigration is, by far, the most logical and ethical decision if you hold Liberty in high regard.

On the other hand, Fantini makes the case that by opening up Immigration, Libertarians run the risk of tearing apart the very fabric of our society, including a base-level tolerance of the principals of Liberty. You are inviting in all kinds of crazy political externalities including Socialism, Totalitarianism, Sharia Law, Polygamy, Bestiality, and so on if you just up and open the borders to anyone that wants to enter. Immigrants won’t assimilate into our culture, and instead we might lose everything that makes America great.

In addition to these points, some of my Right-Wing readers will also argue that Immigrants are poor and will create a drain on Social Services / Welfare, Education, Law Enforcement, and Infrastructure. They steal our jobs and will bring down wages.

Some other well-known Libertarians make the case that since public land is owned by taxpayers, it’s essentially private land, and opening Immigration forces you to allow people onto your private property against your will.

 

So, let’s start with the softballs, the basics of jobs and the economy. The argument that immigrants will steal our jobs, bring down wages, or create a drag on the economy are somewhat of a head scratcher to me. It’s entirely possible that YOUR job might get replaced by an incoming immigrant, just like it’s possible that a local high school or college graduate might replace you after 20 years on the job (that is, of course, unless you are protected by a thug Labor Union which makes it basically impossible to get fired). But this fear of losing one’s job is deeply rooted in the notion that the economy is fixed, that there’s only a set amount of resources and demand. However, as Smith points out, letting immigrants into the community means NEW demand for housing, groceries, energy, financial services, cars, computers, dining out, etc. That demand will create MORE jobs, not less.

Some are concerned that Immigrants will be willing to undercut the current employee for work, driving down wages despite studies that have shown Immigration actually raising the wages of US-born workers. But even if wages fell, Thomas E. Lehman points out this is actually a good thing in the long run. Lower costs to Employers will lead to lower prices for Consumers. It also frees up capital for increased innovation, entrepreneurship, and spending more productively.

Everyone benefits from lower costs. (If you take nothing else from this post, go home with that.) Just like Wheat, Aluminum, Oil, and Land, Labor is just another input into the Marketplace to determine Price of Finished Goods. Put Price in terms of dollars ($) aside for a minute and think of your labor in terms of units of exchange. If you currently exchange about a day of your labor for a week’s worth of groceries, and because of lower total costs, now your labor nets you a month’s worth, aren’t you better off?

Those of you that are concerned about Immigrants coming in that are poor and would create a drain on Social Services and Welfare and ignore the effect of increased Demand (eg. more spending), studies show that immigrants largely do not create a drain on Welfare or Public Aid (due in no small part to the fact that they are currently ineligible to receive it anyway). To that end, Smith’s proposal to counter this fear is very simple — continue to disqualify Immigrants from receiving public aid as part of the terms for entry.

(Those of you who know me know that I’m opposed to All Public Assistance to begin with. I would much rather cut all our taxes and voluntarily help those in need than enable some over-bloated, government program forcing “charity” on everyone.)

This clip is short and sweet and covers the 3 biggest Economic objections to Open Immigration.

 

Thus, based solely on the economic results of Open Immigration, I see no compelling reason to continue to restrict (or even tighten) US Immigration.

 

The next set of issues raised by Fantini on us losing our heritage appears to be more legitimate (on the surface) than the economic fears. Hypothetically, if ½ of China’s native 1.4 Billion population wanted to, and could afford to, move to the US, Chinese American immigrants could overshadow the roughly 320 million Americans overnight. They might decide to ditch the Constitution in favor of a Communist regime or institute Buddhism as the only allowed religion. If we allowed a flood of radical Muslims to come into our country, we’d have Sharia Law taking precedence over our democracy.

So once again, Smith points out a very simple counter proposal to dissuade these fears – don’t allow 1st generation immigrants the right to vote. Their children, born here, would be naturalized citizens and would be able to vote like any other citizen.

Well, what assurance do we have that their children will adopt traditional American values?

There are studies have shown both a tendency to assimilate into as well as segregate from the host culture, so it could arguably go either way.

Here, though, is the most interesting part of this debate.  Don Boudreaux summarized the Libertarian argument against opening Immigration very nicely.

The most popular version of the so-called libertarian case against immigration runs something like this.

Each private property owner has the moral right (and should have the legal right) to ban from his property, or to admit onto his property, anyone he chooses. In a free society, no one is coerced into unwanted associations with others. Therefore, because in a fully free society all land would be privately owned and government would be limited (at most) to keeping the peace, immigration policy in this society would be what ever each private property owner decides it to be. If I wish to let 100 unskilled Irish peasants onto my property, so be it. If my neighbor chooses never to admit onto his property even people from across the street, so be it. There would, in fact, be as many immigration policies in the fully free society as there are landowners. As a practical matter, immigrants would be people who contribute through gains-from-trade to domestic citizens.

But we do not live in a fully free society. Like it or not, we’re stuck with a large and intrusive government. And this same government happens to own enormous tracts of land and public facilities. Given that excessive government is a reality that isn’t soon disappearing, the best that citizens of a democratic society can hope for on the immigration front is that their overly powerful government mimics the immigration policies that a fully free society would adopt. Because there would be no free admission in a fully free society, there should be no free admission in today’s less-than-free society. Indeed, open immigration today is tantamount to forced integration. Citizens who do not wish to associate with foreigners are forced to do so by a government that too freely admits foreign immigrants. And because force is bad, forced integration—a.k.a, open immigration—is bad.

 

As I had alluded to above, well respected Libertarian thinkers like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Lew Rockwell seem to support this opposition as well.

And to me personally, I don’t understand this objection / fear.

Is it possible / likely that open immigration could change the political / social landscape of our country? Absolutely. The question I ask is, are you happy with the status quo? Are you of the mindset that “well, it’s not perfect, but I’d like to keep things the way they are for the most part and trust that our current system will improve.”?

Not to beat a dead horse, but do you trust the government to KEEP THE STATUS QUO to your liking or do you believe it’s going to steadily degrade against you?

As it relates to Immigration, what part of it are you satisfied in keeping “As Is”?

If you want to completely shut down any foreigners from entering our country, do you think the government is doing a good job?

What about if you only want skilled, educated, rich, or productive immigrants allowed in?

Or if you only want democracy loving, flag-waiving, Christian, right-wing immigrants allowed in?

Do you even know what the process is for legal immigration? Here you go. (Click to enlarge.)


 

Pretty simple, right?

So as it sits, here’s where I stand on the issue of Immigration.

Economically speaking, it’s a no-brainer that open immigration will create incredible prosperity, not just for those coming into our global marketplace but also for existing citizens of all economic levels.

There’s no need to radically dump the existing system and create shockwaves throughout. We could begin in phases of opening our borders to certain countries or types of people / skills.

We should limit the voting rights / public welfare access 1st generation immigrants can have as part of the terms of entrance.

 

But this is a complicated topic and I’ve, by no means, put the issue to bed in my mind.  For those of you reading, I would highly recommend checking out some of the links below. Lots of great information, study results, videos, and ongoing debate on this topic.

Whatever you do, don’t pigeonhole yourself into a view on Immigration based on the 2-party system’s regurgitated, canned responses. I’ve learned a great deal in just the last few weeks reading up on the topic and find the discussion fascinating. I will definitely be posting / following the Immigration debate more closely in the future.

—————————

 

Selections from Openborders.info:

Short Videos

Libertarian Case for Open Borders

Conservative and Small Government Case for Open Borders

Some simple, keyhole solutions to common objections

Selections from Fee.org:

Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration

Liberty and Immigration — by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 


When you have virtually unlimited, stolen resources at your disposal and no accountability, you can build pretty libraries

I came across a blog post by Dale Husband who claims to have “completely debunked” Libertarianism once and for all. (I don’t care to link to his page, but if you Google “dale husband the-ultimate-discrediting-of-libertarianism“, you will find his post.)

Dale’s proof? — this “jaw dropping” transformation in McAllen, TX of an old, abandoned Walmart building into a public library

Dale’s claim is that the Walmart was a product of free-market capitalism and that it failed (as a profitable business). And as a result, the city of McAllen did “something that libertarian dogmas said was impossible, because private industries were by nature better than public agencies. When something has been proven to be a lie, it should be abandoned, period.

I asked why he thought Libertarians believed it impossible for government to create something beautiful from the ashes of private industry.

Dale’s response? (my apologies for the language)

My point is that government created that incredible library, Wal-Mart did not. Why did that Wal-Mart location fail? Because it was not profitable enough. That failure no doubt threw many people out of work. But local, state, and federal governments create jobs just as much as private industry does, and they do NOT need to make a profit to function. As a result, they can accomplish more than private industry can with the same financial and material resources. The city of Allen did not just sit by and wait for another private company to buy that former Wal-Mart property and use it, but took taxpayers’ money and did something extremely useful with the place. So next time some Libertarian extremist claims that “taxation is theft”, I will just tell that idiot to fuk off!


I know. I know. There’s so much awesome failure here that I don’t even know where to begin.

Here goes.

I don’t know any of the background concerning this Walmart building. Is it still owned by the company? Was it rented? Did they sell it to the city of McAllen? What was the total price that was paid by Walmart (including all the structure, utilities and land preparation that the new owners benefited from) and how much of that was recouped? It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think that Walmart Corp took a loss on the transaction, meaning the McAllen City Government benefited and got a deal because Walmart just wanted to walk away.

Regardless, let’s look at Dale’s thought process.

I’ve yet to hear any Libertarian claim that anyone (whether an authoritarian state official or a non-profit charity or an individual) is incapable of creating anything of beauty simply because they’re not private industry. If you have bottomless coffers, of course you can use some of those funds to build libraries, parks, arbors, or even Mount Rushmore.

(I don’t know why beauty requires money to be created in the first place. Some of the most beautiful things in God’s creation simply exist in nature.)

I believe Libertarians would assert that governments are NOT THE ONLY ones capable of creating beautiful structures, parks, or educational facilities to be enjoyed by members of the community. The Art Institute of Chicago enjoys corporate sponsorship from the likes of Bank of America, Target, the Terra Foundation For American Art, the Elizabeth F. Cheney Foundation, to name just a few.

But even more impressive than “Private Industry” supporting neighborhood beautification are examples of Voluntary participation or beautification in the midst of Anarchy.

This series by Reason.TV shows how the once great city of Detroit, killed off by government corruption and overregulation, is starting to rise from the ashes thanks, in some part, to Free Association / Voluntary Exchange.


Another curious series of mental backflips that Dale makes are that 1) Walmart’s closure cost some of their employees their jobs and 2) governments create just as many jobs as private industry does but isn’t burdened with the requirement to make a profit.

AND 3)

As a result, [government] can accomplish more than private industry can with the same financial and material resources.

Let’s move quickly past the fact that any lost jobs that resulted in Walmart’s closure wouldn’t have existed in the first place if Walmart was never in McAllen. Is it possible / likely that overregulation and taxation caused Walmart to pull out of McAllen? It wouldn’t be the first time.

Instead, let’s focus on the jobs the government “created” without having the burden of profit. I’ve written numerous times about government job “creation”. Here and here are couple recent examples.

What exactly is Profit? When a business sells a product or a service, it’s just the amount left over above their cost to produce. It could be a very thin profit as is the case with most Food Service businesses. Or it could be a very large margin of profit as is the case with most luxury items.

Profit is not a dirty word. It’s a sign that your good or service is worth enough to the consumer that they’re willing to pay for what you are providing. The more in demand your service, the wider your customer base, the more profit you are likely to enjoy. In an Open Market, if a competitor can do it better, faster, cheaper, or with better results, your product or service isn’t going to last.

What about government services or goods? The problem is that they usually have a monopoly and, by law, are not subject to competition. There’s no incentive then for any improvement or accountability. Some would argue that you can’t put a price on some of the services that government provides like Law Enforcement, Courts, or Muh Roads. I would argue EVERYTHING can be priced in the market. Watch Reason’s second installment on Private Security, for example.

When governments have no incentive to cut spending because they can just raise taxes / fees to increase revenues, are not subject to competition because they have a monopoly, and they are not held accountable for any results / return on their spending . . . well then yes, you might get some pretty libraries and parks to be built, using your money, to keep you content and pacified. Did everyone that was taxed want that library? Are there citizens in McAllen that would have rather seen the money used for schools or health care or more border patrol? What if (gasp!) some of the citizens of McAllen just wanted their tax burden lowered so that they could decide how to spend their own money?

See, government beautification programs are a smoke screen used to pacify the subjugated. Many people love the idea of having a beautiful library for the public, but what they don’t see are the other things that could have been purchased / saved as a result of less government spending.

Finally, I know Dale has already made up his mind that Taxation isn’t Theft, but I’ve clearly laid out previously how it is, in fact, the very definition of theft. He’s justifying the theft, as all Statists do. But it’s still Theft.  From Dale’s own words – “The city … took taxpayers’ money and did something extremely useful with the place.”

You Think You Own Your Body? Try Selling Your Organs.

There are very few causes that I will support without question. Cancer research, AIDS awareness, Domestic Violence Prevention Programs, Ebola Internment Camps. For any group that wants my support, I usually approach them with some skepticism at first and have to be convinced of their merit.

One of my exceptions is blood and organ donation. I don’t care where it goes. I don’t care who receives my donations. I don’t ask if it will be used for research or for rich white, 80 year old men to keep their drinking habits going. Honestly, I don’t even care if they try to clone me using my DNA (although, I question their sanity).

The only condition I have is that my donations are voluntary – meaning, I still have the right to opt out until the moment the blood or tissues are removed from me. This would, of course, mean that I’m probably not going to be handing over any vital organs like my heart or liver while I’m still alive. Once I’m flat lining, harvest away.

I donate blood pretty much every 8 weeks at my local provider, Carter BloodCare. They have facilities all throughout North, Central and East TX. They also setup blood drives all over DFW.

Your body produces enough blood to donate a pint every 8 weeks. Aside from a needle stick and about an hour of your time, the process is safe and pretty harmless. The benefits, however, can’t be measured.

Blood and most organs cannot be artificially reproduced. They must come from a live donation in order to be fully functional. Hopefully someday, technology will have an artificial solution, but for now, we’re limited to organ donors.

A friend sent me this story about a man that has been faithfully donating blood for 59 years. It’s estimated he alone has helped save over 2 Million Newborns with his donations. I don’t know anything about this man. He may be a fascist, racist, or atheist. Regardless, I hold him in high esteem.

You can talk all you want about increasing the minimum wage and taxing the rich for the poor or improving public schools. All these things go through some bureaucratic behemoth and get pennies on the dollar to the actual cause. Organ and blood donations directly benefit people who just want to live for another day. And it costs you nothing but time.

So why am I so passionate about this cause?

To sum it up, I am fighting the government’s immoral and illegitimate, monopolistic control of Supply.

I’ve written here before that I believe that as God’s creation, He ultimately owns us. We’re just stewards with everything we have, including our bodies. But after God, I have authority over my body. Not the government. If I want to grow out my hair, cut if off, and sell it to wig makers, there should be no one interfering with that transaction other than me and the wig maker. The same argument applies to a pint of my blood, one of my kidneys, or even my heart after I die (I could will the proceeds from selling my organs and tissues as part of my estate.)

Almost a year ago, I posted a question on Facebook to my friends that read “Why is it illegal to sell your organs /tissues? What right does the government have over your own body?”

As you can imagine, this touched off a fire storm of debate.

In a nutshell, there are 2 basic categories of responses I had received supporting the current prohibition of selling your organs and tissues.

  1. It may encourage people to steal / sell someone else’s organs without their full, informed consent (maybe they weren’t thinking straight or high or unaware that they needed their organs, etc.) and

     

  2. The poor would not be able to afford to pay for organs and so by creating a market for organ donations, this would disproportionately hurt the poor’s chances at getting them.

     

So, let’s look at these 2 arguments.

For the first, I have a moral objection to all theft. I don’t care if it’s a kid with a gun demanding your car or an IRS agent taking money from your paycheck BEFORE YOU EVEN SEE IT. Theft of any kind is wrong and I will oppose it every time.

Think about this first argument with anything other than organs. If we applied it to, say, cars. The fact that cars can be bought or sold in the open market today might encourage someone to steal your car and sell it. Or it might open the door to shifty swindlers to convince you to take out a 500% monthly interest auto loan against the equity in your car to pay for groceries this month.

But do we prevent the sale of cars because of these potentially bad outcomes? Of course not. This argument is a no brainer.

The second argument requires a little more understanding of how prices, the market, and Supply and Demand work.

Right now, there is an EXTREME shortage of legal supply. In this piece by Keith Humphreys, he writes that “about 30 Americans a day either die on the [organ donor] waiting list or are removed from it because they have become too ill to receive a transplant.

I make the distinction that the shortage is of legal supply because in a free market, there’s an almost unlimited, available supply. The problem is that the current system is completely dependent on the altruism of voluntary donors.

Most people don’t think about donating organs or blood. Most people are not incented enough to simply hand over their organs to strangers, even post mortem. The fact is that unless you know someone that has suffered and been in need of organs, you probably haven’t given it much thought.

But what would happen to Supply if people could sell their organs for cash legally and openly? Who would set the prices for sale? How would recipients pay for them? Would all organs be homogeneously priced / categorized? Would the liver of a 20 year old woman that had never drank alcohol or done any drugs go for the same price as a 70 year old alcoholic’s?

This is where the Free Market would establish Price Equilibrium. If overnight, all restrictions were lifted, you’d probably see a flood of donations hit the market hoping to cash in. Prices would fluctuate up and down all over the map. A healthy kidney might go for as much as $50,000 at first and then $10,000 the next day and then $1,000 the next week as more and more Supply becomes available.

Until at one glorious point, there would actually be TOO MUCH Supply. ALL the donor needs in the market today would be met. Not a single person would die because of the lack of Organ / Tissue / Blood donations. Instead of Organ Recipient waiting lists, you would actually have true “Organ Donor” waiting lists (meaning, people waiting to sell their organs at a negotiated price when the need arose).

Think I’m living in a fantasy world? It’s already happened in Iran. This article is a little dated and I haven’t been able to find any follow up information, but Iran had already witnessed a Surplus (excess Supply) because the market was opened up.

Think about that.

IRAN has freer markets than we do.

Price Equilibrium moves as the market moves. So after the initial drop in price, you may see a rebound. Potential donors may look at the price they are being offered for their organs and decide it’s not worth what the market is offering. And for a while, prices may climb. But as soon as they reach a point that’s favorable, donors will come back to the market and meet demand.

What about the poor?” you say. “What if, even with a surplus of supply, the poor are not able to afford paying for organs?

The great thing about a free market, as pointed out in Humphreys’ article, is that just because people can sell their organs for compensation does not mean those altruistic people that would have donated under the current regime would stop or be prevented from giving away their organs freely. In a free market, YOU set the price for selling your property, even if the price is zero or below the market rate.

It’s time to end the inexcusable suffering the government has caused millions of people over decades because of our fear that people will not be able to think for themselves.

But until then, please think about becoming an organ and blood donor today. The need is great. The cost is little. The reward is yours forever to cherish.

Libertarianism Does Not Mean “Live and Let Live” | Connor’s Conundrums

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/libertarianism-does-not-mean-live-and-let-live