Some markets (or potential markets) are offensive for a variety of reasons. Markets for kidneys and price gouging, for example. They may involve objectification, coercion, slippery slopes, or undermining of important institutions. Libertarians often say marketize anyhow, while ignoring non-market alternatives.
- A Regulated Kidney Market Designed To Minimize Social Harms
- Libertarians endorse unregulated organ markets, but that would bring many social harms. Single buyer markets where the payments go to the donor's choice of charity might solve most of the problems.
- Imposing options on people in poverty: the harm of a live donor organ market [More...]
- "If a free market in organs was permitted and became widespread, then it is reasonable to assume that your organs would soon enough become economic resources like any other, in the context of the market. Selling your organs would become something that is simply expected of you as and when financial need arises. Our new ‘option’ can thus easily be transformed into a social or legal demand, and it can drastically change the attitudes that others adopt towards you."
- Markets in Organs (3 links)
- Society is very leery of creating markets for organs, for very good reasons. Many libertarians (following ideological dictates of Self-Ownership and Market Fundamentalism) think organ markets should be unregulated.
- Price Gouging (4 links)
- Price Gouging during disasters is strongly defended by libertarians and others using bad Economics 101 arguments that presume only money matters and ignore market failures. Price Gouging occurs during non-equilibrium situations and does not support the justifications made for markets in the first place.
- Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets [More...]
- Alvin Roth presents an even-handed overview of repugnant market issues and arguments. With special reference to markets for kidneys.
- The Elasticity of Demand With Respect to Product Failures; or Why the Market for Quack Medicines Flourished for More Than 150 Years [More...]
- Markets did not punish the quack medicine industry due to unusually low elasticity of demand with respect to product failure and bounded rationality. The conclusion mentions that recent resaerch shows the FDA increased consumer welfare.
No quotations found in this category.