I raised this question in the New York Times on February 25th in reference to a book review. In view of the venomous reaction from those who promote trade in human organs, please note the respect with which I treat those I differ with and the fact that I raised issues, and not attacked persons.

I wrote:

Virginia Postrel, a renowned libertarian, draws on “Last Best Gifts,” by an economic sociologist, Kieran Healy (Jan. 28), to argue that the altruistic “ideology” of giving the gift of life stands in the way of developing a market in organs.

Actually, what we need is more, not fewer, evocations of our moral responsibilities. Currently most states essentially leave it to each individual — if and when she renews her driver’s license — to indicate whether she is willing for her organs to be harvested.

If, instead, whenever people fill out forms in doctors’ offices, clinics and hospitals, they were given a form that would remind them of the suffering of the many thousands who are dying for donations and would tell them how much we all hope they give that which they cannot take with them — many more organs would be available. Such a clear articulation of what the community considers good citizenship would be further enhanced if donors were listed on a Web page, a sort of honor roll.

In contrast, if the market steps in, we know from experience in other nations that the rich would purchase the organs and the poor would risk their health by selling theirs. One can be a market zealot and still argue for keeping the money-changers out of this temple.

The New York Times added the following note, on the basis of information I provided the paper,

The writer directs the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. His paper “Organ Donation: A Communtarian Approach” may be read at: dspace.wrlc.org/bitstream/1961/204/1/A302.pdf

My note elicited this response from her blog. Note that I saluted Ms. Postrel’s altruistic act of donating one of her kidneys. She of course did not sell hers but generously gave it freely to another person (who wrote to me). Thus Ms. Postrel provides a highly commendable example of the approach I believe we ought to try.

As to self promotion, unlike Ms. Postrel I did not mention a thing about myself and my contributions. I did promote an idea that I believe will save lives. Given the shortage of space in the NYT, I did provide a link so that those interested in details can find the relevant text.

I see nothing to apologize for. Sadly these days those who get most of the air time are those who are full of sound and furry, the like of O’Reilly on Fox. These are often people who cannot defend their positions and distract attention from the weakness in their approach, by cussing out those who respectfully beg to differ.

Most important, there is no reason for a libertarian to oppose moral appeals. They leave the choice to the individual, unlike government coercion. Indeed the more people do what must be done in response to appeals to their better angels, the less there is a need for government action when markets fail or in areas they have should no tread in the first place.

Note—in a very welcome contrast to Ms. Postrel personal attacks—see a very thoughtful response and set of ideas by Kieran Healy.

(Crosspost with Amitai Etzioni Notes)