|
I only know of the Red Cross taking blood in Australia, so if you can tell me that private sales of blood are illegal in Australia, your claim gets a lot more credibility. My claim was that "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. Thus, we do not face a simply either government or freedom choice; government enhances some freedoms, and reduces others." That claim is not at all dependent on the legal situation in any one country. Thus, its credibility is not at all dependent on the current legal status of private sales of blood in Australia.
Furthermore you or Titmus have not explained why commodification reduces altruism. In response to a request from you for information about Titmus's book, premised on the fact that you were interested in following it up, I provided a brief summary of the main arguments he developed. Now, if you want to argue about the merits of Titmus's conclusions, or his underlying arguments, that's fine - but it may help if go and read the book first. In it, you will find why Titmus explains in some detail why, in his view, the commodification of blood would reduce altruism. You may agree or disagree with his views - as if your perogative. But please do not attempt to score points off Titmus (who, incidentally, is not a regular contributer to this forum) or me for not having done explained a particular argument in his book on this forum, when there has been no reason for us to do so. RS
| 
