There is an interesting copunter-arument when it comes to euthanasia, (which you did not mention but ties in nicely with the consenting adults bit)
The libertarian / liberal view is bodily autonomy / consenting adults we should allow it.
The counter-argument however, is that by even introducing it as a possibility, you change how people interact with other possibilities. E.g. in my country the state pays for healthcare, and the money for euthanasia will certainly come out of the healthcare budget. So every year, some accountant will have to decide how much money to earmark for euthanasia, and how much for treatment. Killing people is a lot cheaper than healing them, so you will inevitably end up creating a pressure on some people to take euthanasia when they otherwise wouldn’t have (Because the money which used to go to treatment, has now been redirected to killing them)
I suspect you can construct a similar argument about kidney selling. As long as you have an environment where it is legal, it disincentives power structures from exploring the options which would make it no longer necessary.
Yeah, I tried to cut the line at “trading money” as opposed to a general examination of libertarian principles. But I agree that for euthanasia, once you start considering higher-order effects, it’s not clear that it’s net positive for society. For example, if I definitely never want to do euthanasia, then legalizing it does seem to hurt me. Because maybe someday and I’m old and disabled and my children have to go to enormous effort to take care of me. Even if they’d never consider the idea the idea of euthanasia, the mere possibility of it might make me feel like more of a burden to them and make me feel guilty for not doing it.
Of course there are obviously downsides to making it illegal, too! I don’t really have a strong view on which is net-positive. Seems very hard.
There is an interesting copunter-arument when it comes to euthanasia, (which you did not mention but ties in nicely with the consenting adults bit)
The libertarian / liberal view is bodily autonomy / consenting adults we should allow it.
The counter-argument however, is that by even introducing it as a possibility, you change how people interact with other possibilities. E.g. in my country the state pays for healthcare, and the money for euthanasia will certainly come out of the healthcare budget. So every year, some accountant will have to decide how much money to earmark for euthanasia, and how much for treatment. Killing people is a lot cheaper than healing them, so you will inevitably end up creating a pressure on some people to take euthanasia when they otherwise wouldn’t have (Because the money which used to go to treatment, has now been redirected to killing them)
I suspect you can construct a similar argument about kidney selling. As long as you have an environment where it is legal, it disincentives power structures from exploring the options which would make it no longer necessary.
Yeah, I tried to cut the line at “trading money” as opposed to a general examination of libertarian principles. But I agree that for euthanasia, once you start considering higher-order effects, it’s not clear that it’s net positive for society. For example, if I definitely never want to do euthanasia, then legalizing it does seem to hurt me. Because maybe someday and I’m old and disabled and my children have to go to enormous effort to take care of me. Even if they’d never consider the idea the idea of euthanasia, the mere possibility of it might make me feel like more of a burden to them and make me feel guilty for not doing it.
Of course there are obviously downsides to making it illegal, too! I don’t really have a strong view on which is net-positive. Seems very hard.