|
Sorry, I'll talk about Titmus as I see fit. "Thus, we do not face a simply either government or freedom choice; government enhances some freedoms, and reduces others." Hold on there. "a society in which there is no prohibition on the sale enhances the negative freedom of being able to sell something, but reduces the positive freedom to give away something (blood) that cannot (legally) be sold." Which isn't unecessarily true. Titmus' comaprisons mean very little if it is not not considered what happens in other nations with both sets of legal status, and comparing attitudes to blood, and also other commodities and charity. More important is the role of commodification in altruism. The incentive for altruism is either it is to make the giver feel good, or as to participate in a non tradeable insurance system. Commodification may reduce or improve the warm and fuzzy feeling, but to change from a non tradeable insurance system to a semi tradable one increases choice - which allows for and is utility enhancing itself. So in America, people may substitute labour to pay for other medical services which are more effective than increasing quality and quantity of the blood supply.
| 
