One that isn’t fully fleshed out you understand. But, as here:
It’s also possible to invert the entire discussion and point out that we all already agree with this thought anyway. Exactly those who tell us that, say, blood must be donated voluntarily, are likely to be those who also insist that we don’t solely rely upon charity to solve poverty and inequality.
We must instead tax and then use government to hand out that forcibly acquired revenue to solve that problem. No, this doesn’t mean I think we should use force to gain kidneys for transplant. But by insisting that voluntary action, charity, won’t solve the problem we have just agreed that voluntary action, charity, won’t solve the problem. We thus have to use some other method to do so.
We must use only voluntary donation to provide organs for transplant. OK, fine, fair enough, but that does leave some people dying.
We cannot leave it purely to voluntary and charity to alleviate poverty because some will die. OK, fair enough.
Where this falls down is that it’s only in Poul Anderson novels that forcible transplants take place. Or maybe Chinese prisons.
But it is interesting, at least I think so, that most people on one side of either of those statements will be on the other side of the other. Those who would insist that we cannot use paid markets for body bits would be, in my experience at least, those most vehement against relying purely upon charity to deal with poverty.