patrick.net

And why they have a big scar on their sides.

Why their kids? I will be equally happy to mentor other people's kids (OPK) if they are to improve humanity.

The kids have to pay the airfare with one of their own kidneys. Kidding

Peter, your nice guy humanitarian side is refreshing but can't stand up to the flood of people you invite whenever you advertise your generosity.

I do not see any moral issue with a voluntary organ market.

Organs are key assets to a person just like knowledge and abilities. If people are allowed to sell labor (i.e. work), they should be able to sell surplus organs.

RE: your nice guy humanitarian

I am a mean humanitarian.

I do. As it typical with any free market failure, it exploits those lower down on a social ladder. Like many of our discussions, I have to point out, that it seems like it is always the poor little brown man who has to sacrifice for the wealthy American.

Actually I believe knowledge should be free. I love the Internet. Socrates believed you shouldn't charge for knowledge.

Back to organs, the reason I disagree, and yes you should have the right to do whatever you want, but the reason I disagree with you is because there is no equity there. It is an act of desperation which normally I would say ok, but this act has a consequence of shortening lives. Skibum should probably agree with the medical fact of giving an organ. It is not equitable, because YOU would not give up an organ for the same price. It is exploitation of someone less fortunate.

Socrates believed you shouldn’t charge for knowledge.

If he had called that 900 number someone would have told him that hemlock was poisonous.

(in fact, it is illegal to check the status after 3 monhts has passed).

This is precisely the kind of shit I'm talking about. WTF?

You're a smart guy, I know you know the story behind that.

In fact that is a true martyr. His sentence was so obviously unjust he literally forced society to stomache their own decision. Unlike Chinese society where they would have just erased any trace of him.

It is not equitable, because YOU would not give up an organ for the same price. It is exploitation of someone less fortunate.

That is highly arguable.

Would you sweep floor at minimum wage? I thought exploiting differences in relative costs is an important aspect of economics.

It is an act of desperation which normally I would say ok, but this act has a consequence of shortening lives.

Of course, the organ seller must consent to higher future insurance premium.

Bap33

With or without any respect, I don't have any "side". You can choose to hide behind someone else's stated ideology if that suits you. I think for myself.

it is your “side” that comes up with ways to take money from people who do work and give it to people that dont. I think we will both agree on that fact.

Peter P Says:
"May 1st, 2007 at 6:00 pm
It is not equitable, because YOU would not give up an organ for the same price. It is exploitation of someone less fortunate.

That is highly arguable.

Would you sweep floor at minimum wage? I thought exploiting differences in relative costs is an important aspect of economics.

It is an act of desperation which normally I would say ok, but this act has a consequence of shortening lives.

Of course, the organ seller must consent to higher future insurance premium. "

No, I don't need to sweep the floor at minimum wage because I command a higher wage, or I have different sources of income. However, if I were desperate I would, and I have in the past. You are correct about the economics, like I said normally I have no problem exploiting a comparitive advantage up until it becomes exploitation of an individual in the form of harming them.

Believe me, corporate America should have to answer for the shit they do around the world. They open a factory somewhere specifically for lack of safety laws. As moral consumers we should boycott these criminals.

I just hope the housing market doesn’t come back to balance through massive increase in rents.

A part of the adjustment will come from rent increases. Come on, 3900 is still much cheaper than mortgage, right? ;)

Despite the numbers I keep hearing from you guys up north, San Diego's vacancies are 5%, and rents are falling.

How about this… illegals may be legalized if they build the fence for free.

Sounds fair to me. One thing though –we need to make sure they complete the fence on the Mexican side of the border (wink, wink ).

Ok, I need to get on my soapbox when I hear this type of comment. We don't need more fences and big government enforcement--we need less intrusive government. Here is a quote from Dick Armey:

"We have too many immigrants coming here to get on welfare. But the reasonable response is not to build a police state. It's to shrink the welfare state. We have an educational system that no longer promotes assimilation. But the sensible response is not to exclude foreign children. It's to scrap multiculturalism in the schools and give parents real school choice."

I rarely agree with Armey, but this is one instance where I think he has it right. We should massively increase the number of people who are permitted to legally immigrate. This would broaden the tax base, keep consumer prices low, prevent exploitation of immigrants by unscrupulous employers, and ensure an adequate supply of workers. But we also need to simultaneously reduce the size and scope of government.

Taxpayers should not be upset with immigratns. Instead, they should be upset with big government in all of its manifestations--police state Republicans and welfare state democrats. Immigrants, on the whole, make life better for US taxpayers by (1) paying taxes, (2) receiving few government benefits (it is a myth that they receive substantial government handouts--the last thing most immigrants want to do is identify themselves to the government by applying for benefits because, rightly or wrongly, they believe that doing so exposes them to the risk of deportation) and (3) working for low wages, which is a benefit to business owners and consumers.

Sorry, but anyone who wants to build fences really does hate our freedom.

I'm really getting sick of these Dick Cheney suit wearing losers who hide their repugnant business practices behind the corporate veil. And I'm a registered Republican for crying out loud.

You are correct about the economics, like I said normally I have no problem exploiting a comparitive advantage up until it becomes exploitation of an individual in the form of harming them.

In principle, I agree with you. But sometimes the line between right and wrong is not so clear.

As moral consumers we should boycott these criminals.

I do not agree. As those countries become richer, they will develop their ow safety laws. Boycotting them will only slow down the process.

Glen, even uping the quotas won't stop the inflow of illegals. I don't see anyone hear disagreeing about getting rid of the welfare inducements, but we have a real problem down here and we need to enforce the border.

Then we'll disagree.....but I'm right :)

First clue, if the line between right and wrong isn't clear, then err on the side of being right.

I know your macroeconomic theory is right on, but these are real people who get to lose limbs in machinery, or have to drink the shit these factories spew into their environments. Unregulated commerce does NOT clean itself up.

Could someone provide me with a historical precedent where the fence-builders fared better than those they were trying to fence-off?

I propose that fences are antithetical to human nature, and especially to American nature.

"Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall!" You know, the Soviets didn't tell das Volk in the DDR the fence was to keep them in after all. It was to keep the evil kapitalists out.

Unregulated commerce does NOT clean itself up.

True. I will think about that.

Malcolm,

Border security is not the answer. In a free society it is far too easy to come into the country. Even if you "sealed the border," people would find a way in (tunnels, boats, planes, the wide open canadian border, etc.) Once someone makes it into the the interior of the country, there is virtually no enforcement.

So what is the solution? A crackdown on employers of illegal immigrants? I doubt this will have much of an effect. You may get larger employers to change their practices, but I suspect that most illegal immigrants work as domestic workers, day-laborers, etc., so it is hard to track them by their employers.

Raid private homes to find landlords who rent to illegal immigrants or households who hire undocumented gardeners, nannies and housekeepers? And what is probable cause? A spanish surname? Sounds kind of gestapo-like, no?

Could someone provide me with a historical precedent where the fence-builders fared better than those they were trying to fence-off?

The Great Wall of China counts as a fence, right?

The Great Firewall is a separate issue...

I propose that fences are antithetical to human nature, and especially to American nature.

Well said, Randy.

I think most people have a cartoon notion of how well borders and walls can seal off a population.

You guys do know that even during the grand castle sieges of antiquity literally thousands of people were able to sneak in and out every night, right? If you can't keep a freaking castle secure how do you expect to use force and barriers to cordon off a third of a continent?

Just curious.

Yes Glen, that is gestapo stuff. On prior threads I actually took flack for forcing the issue that GOVERNMENT is in charge of law enforcement. We are not going to have landlords and storekeepers making secret little phone calls every time some suspicious brown person interacts with them. If you are interested I'll find my proposal of a full program and I'll paste it here.

Castles didn't have motion sensors, or secuirty cameras.

I do think we should make the Rio Grande our moat though. We should stock it with crocodiles.

Castles didn't have electronic surveillance, true. But they did practice on-the-spot judgment and execution for the lucky, and a whole array of other ghastly sport for the not so fortunate. I'd say there was a pretty effective "deterrent" in place in most cases.

Actually while we are talking about history, I have an example. The Great Wall of China was a success as far as I know. We can't do the same here because Haliburton would overcharge us.

Randy, if you haven't been the Tower of London is right up your alley.

They still have some famous chopping blocks there.

Fair question for you, if all these people were sneaking in and out of the castles how do you know about them? I can't really picture people bragging about it.