When it comes to Apple and Steve Jobs, all the focus today will be on whether the company should have revealed the state of Jobs' health. That is unfortunate. This story should serve as another lesson in the evils of government intervention.
What do we know about organs that people need in order to survive? There aren’t enough of them. Want more? Pay for them. Give people a financial incentive to give up their liver when they die. Supply will sky rocket.
Are you aghast? I’m going to infuriate you even more with this one: Let living people sell a kidney.
One argument against paying the deceased's family for organs is the fear that those relatives will be more likely to let the donor die at crucial decision making points. Well, under that logic, you’d have to outlaw all inheritances.
Another argument you will hear: If you let people sell a kidney, you are exploiting the poor as they are the only one’s who will be desperate enough to do so.
More on Steve Jobs, Apple:
- Tech Check: New Questions About Jobs
- Apple Sells Over 1 Million iPhones, Beating Forecasts
Yes, the poor will be the suppliers, but I think it is paternalistic to tell them what they can or cannot do with their bodies. In addition, they could be making a very rationale choice.
Will the money they receive make their family's life far better than? It is easy when you are well off to dictate to the poor the kinds of decisions they should make about their lives. Get off your high horse.
And seriously, do you think the current system doesn’t benefit the rich and well-connected? The minute you have rationing and government control like we do right now, the system is ripe for those who have money and friends to get moved up the list and game the system.