I was delighted to hear that the Dutch Minister for Public Health, Wellbeing, and Sports (no comment on his title) Ab Klink has suggested that the Netherlands adopts a system to pay people to donate kidneys:

The plan to reward donors with free insurance was drawn up by the Dutch Health Council, which advises the health ministry.

Although it is illegal for a donor to sell a kidney, the council argues that the insurance option would provide an incentive to donate. It claims the dearth of kidneys has already boosted an illicit trade in organs from living donors.

Trust the Dutch to come up with good ideas, particularly whenever it comes to selling one’s body.

A little while ago, Mark Wallace wrote a great article arguing in defence of one’s right to sell one’s own organs (specifically a kidney) for LibertarianUK.  That was in response to a reality television programme, called ’The Big Donor Show‘, based around a terminally-ill woman whose task was to choose a worthy recipient for her kidneys.  Since it was a Dutch programme, made by Endemol, it’s an idea that’s come full circle.

There are clearly still flaws with the system.  The fact that the government has set the price at the cost of health insurance, independent of the rules of supply and demand, means that the reward doesn’t reflect the outlay.  If free health insurance isn’t reward enough, there won’t be enough donors.  If free health insurance is too high a price to pay, taxpayers will be punished, and kidneys will be wasted.

Moreover, it undermines the very principle of health insurance: that one pays for the risk that one accumulates oneself.  If health insurance is free, whatever it costs, the reward is lowest for the most-valuable kidneys (i.e. those owned by healthy people, who have low premiums), and highest for the least-valuable kidneys (i.e. those owned by morbidly obese alcoholics with a penchant for playing knife games on their abdomens).  Indeed, providing free health insurance for life may induce or encourage some people to traverse from the former group to the latter, by removing the financial disincentive to doing so.

Instead of improving health, by increasing the number of organ donors, it may lead to either an over-supply or under-supply of organs, in addition to the spread of a malaise of apathy towards one’s own health, as observed in this country after the NHS was established.

Take a better system.  Iran has a relatively free market in kidneys, which are priced at $2,000 to $4,000 each, depending on conditions, circumstances, and (of course) the private agreement of the donor and the recipient.  The consequence is that Iran has more kidney donors per head of the population than any other country, and 150% more than the UK.

Far be it from me to proclaim either Iran or Mark Wallace as paragons of perfection, but Iran’s policy and Mark’s argument are far more developed and intellectually-consistent than this proposal.  If it’s yours, it’s yours, without qualification or qualm, whilst a completely free market in organs will be far more effective, removing all the pragmatic barriers to the success of the system.

At the same time, this is no damp squib.  In pursuing this policy, the Dutch government is taking a courageous step towards the free market model, and slaying a supposedly sacred cow in the process.  To allow people a choice over whether they have one kidney or two, and to reap the benefits of whichever they choose, is an eminently sensible idea.  It’s too bad that the Dutch seem to have all the sensible ideas, and leave none to our government.  Is an idea donation on the cards?

When you cross the Independent with a man with a name like ‘Le Grand’, you know it’s going to be an uncomfortable morning’s reading.  But when the rubbish said newspaper and said man spout are as rancid as that that corrupt the minds of the nation this morning, we could be excused for choking on our cornflakes (it’s lunch, but I was hungover at breakfast, so I’m having cornflakes now anyway).

The ‘Le Grand’ in question is Professor Julian, chair of Health England - whatever that is - and professor at LSE.  Speaking to the Royal Statistical Society on Monday night, he suggested that the way to end the health crisis was to introduce:

a smoking permit, which smokers would have to produce when buying cigarettes, an “exercise hour” to be provided by all large companies for their employees and a ban on salt in processed food.

Fair enough.  I mean, not fair - they’re stupid, stomach-churningly abysmal ideas that deserve to be lined up against the wall and shot one-by-one, and anyone can see right through that - but we’re used to this sort of shit from the government and its incompetent and intellectually illiterate advisers.

But what really gets me is that, apparently:

The idea, dubbed “libertarian paternalism”, reverses the traditional government approach that requires individuals to opt in to healthy schemes. Instead, they would have to opt out to make the unhealthy choice, by buying a smoking permit, choosing not to participate in the exercise hour or adding salt at the table.

What the f***?  “Libertarian paternalism”?  How the f*** is this libertarian?  Who the f*** dubs it ‘libertarian’?  This is about giving the government complete control over our lives.  It is about shifting the assumption of innocence to the assumption of guilt.  It is about making ourselves - the people - subservient to them - the state: those that we created to help us, not the other way around.  That is the opposite of libertarianism.  It is totalitarianism.  The ‘traditional government approach’ of allowing people a choice is not ‘traditional’.  It is essential.

Professor Le Grand may use his credentials to spit fascistic political bile at us, under the guise of a ’statistical’ analysis of the health problem, but so can we.  We, true libertarians, refuse to let you use that word.  We refuse to let you steal our clothing.  We refuse to let you drape the terminology of freedom and tolerance over your policy of slavery and intolerance.

Le Grand can piss off back to the LSE.  He can give us back our clothing, and he can piss off.  God help him if he runs into the Hayek Society any time soon.  If he does, he might just want to get some new clothes designed with those with second arseholes in mind.