Dutch Auction for the Right to Reproduce

[Tab]

Re. Birth-to-order for organ harvesting.

I think a birth-bond system here would help prevent or at least put an obstacle in the way of the black market organ business. A birth bond would effectively increase the value of a child to a prospective mother.

Worst-case scenario - producing children premeditatively for organ harvesting as a 'family business'. The overheads just went up.

Kidnapping children off the streets - when each child becomes an expensive investment to a family, that child will be better protected, and thus less easy to kidnap.

In short, a birthbond system would combat the organ-harvesters or at least drive them elsewhere. If world-wide, the average 'price' of a child were to be driven up beyond the cost of producing a replacement organ by other viable means, then the black market organ business would shut down.

[Aegean]

Tabula Rasa
forwarding a message from an old friend...to Istanbul?

*zoink….burrrrrr….spalt…boink!!!

Don't understand....but he said you would.

[PavlovianModel146]

Also, I'm assuming there would have to be some regulations as to who or what could participate in the auction and to whom the bonds could be sold consequently - nationality-wise, otherwise some outside body, with an eye to controlling the population of a country involved in this birth-bond process, could effectively buy 'generations' of its (yet to be) populace, especially if the exchange rates were low as the price of the bonds would always be tied to the currency of the country issuing them, and the average incomes of its populace. This would effectively give rich nations a fair degree of control over the birth rates of poor nations, and leverage over the governments involved.

In fact, have we not simply created a counter-currency..? Its worth based on probably the most valuable asset imaginable - a human life..?

"2 packs of Marlboro please."
"Sure that'll be 80trillion euromarkdollars."
"Tch, this economy lol - Have you got change for a baby..?"

The first thing to say is that I completely agree with the first paragraph and have nothing to add. I suppose the only exception would be if it were stipulated that bonds could only be purchased using currency xxxxxxx, worldwide, but the notion that all countries would agree to that (or would even all agree to doing this) is so far-fetched as to be beyond reasonable consideration, imo.

However, I do disagree with the notion of a, "Counter-currency," at least, to the extent that it actually means anything. If we accept that the barter system was simply a means of exchange that was replaced by a more efficient one (i.e. currency), but that the barter system is still (or can be) used to a limited extent, then these bonds don't do what you are saying anymore than anything else does. In other words, the bond is just an instrument, and unless it is stipulated that money can be the only means of transferring a bond from one person to another (which, if stipulated, causes the whole, 'group pool for one' concept to immediately fail because there is no legal means to give the bond to the one) then the bond does not necessarily have to be exchanged for currency, or really for anything at all.

That's not to say that currency would not be the most likely method of exchange, it probably would, just that it doesn't have to be.

So, in my view, you can call a car a, "Counter currency," if you intend to trade the car for currency, or you could not call the car a currency, "Item for sale," but calling the bond a currency doesn't make it any different than transferring ownership of a car.

I also don't think it's a counter-currency because actual currency would be the most likely method of exchange. If someone in Europe wanted to offer me Euros for my car (or bond), and I was willing to accept them, then I don't think that sufficient to make the car a currency:

Common U.S. Currency:

$100 bill---$50 bill---$20 bill---$10 bill---$5 bill---$1 bill---Quarters---Dimes---Nickels---Pennies

So, I would argue that another characteristic of a currency ought be its reducibility to smaller components. The bonds would be irreducible, similarly, you wouldn't cut a car in half and expect to be able to sell each half for the same (combined) amount for which you could have sold the entire car.

[Tab]

Pav wrote:

However, I do disagree with the notion of a, "Counter-currency," at least, to the extent that it actually means anything

Yeah, ok, was a verrry early morning post, counter currency is pushing it a bit. Savings bond maybe.

Tabula Rasa
forwarding a message from an old friend...to Istanbul?

*zoink….burrrrrr….spalt…boink!!!

Don't understand....but he said you would.

Erm, nope, I don't understand either tbh. 'tabula rasa' was my old old handle, so that dates it a bit I guess.

[PavlovianModel146]

Savings bond could work.

If it helps, Future Man (as far as a search goes) is the only user that has ever said, "Zoink," at the same time that you were known as Tabula Rasa. However, I do know that there are lost posts, a good many of them, for whatever reason. It also doesn't appear that he was speaking to you in that thread.

EDIT: I think you were just throwing up a softball to get me back in practice. We'll call it that. I appreciate it, I can use any help I can get.

[Tab]

Eh, lotta water under bridges, etc. I liked futureman, cheers for investigating anyway. Must be that chest of cursed spanish dubloons I buried under the blue mosque or something. And the illuminati ofc., always the illuminati.