If you’ve ever tried to sell football tickets, economists have little to teach you about the law of supply.You may love your spot in the heart of Death Valley, but — at some price — you’ll happily watch the game at Brightside Bar & Grill.All else held equal, higher prices result in more people selling their tickets.Whenever prices are above what economists call the “market-clearing price,” there are surplus offers without enough takers.Whenever prices are below the market-clearing level, there is a shortage of people willing to give up their highly valued resources.If you want to think like an economist, the next time you see a shortage say, “the price is too low.”Let’s practice.This year, 6,500 Americans on the organ waiting list will pass away. If you count those who left the list because their worsening sickness made them                                                     poor candidates, that number goes to 9,000. Count others whom doctors never even bothered to put on the waiting list in the first place, and you’re looking at a deadly shortage.Clearly, the price is too low.There’s a lot to admire about someone who freely gives his or her organs. Even more striking are those who go under the knife to give a kidney or part of their liver.Unfortunately, the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act made the buying and selling of organs from both living and dead sources illegal — hence the shortage.Imagine a world where grieving families had a way to deal with funeral expenses, the blood donor buses occasionally parked alongside Free Speech Alley could offer a $20 payment, and liberal arts graduates could repay their student loans by selling a part of their liver — if they still have one left.The market-clearing price for kidneys is around $15,000, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker and Julio Elias. This is far less than the alternative — a lifetime of dialysis, which costs twice as much every yearIt’s hard to see how anyone could be pragmatically against free-market organ transplants. Those who need organs get their life extended, and those who need more money boost their finances.Like any voluntary transaction, all participants leave in a better position than they started. That is, after all, why they volunteered to participate.But perhaps this is a situation in which ethics trumps pragmatics. Perhaps an abstract moral principle should stop the desperate from improving their situation.Detractors might say it’s wrong to “put a dollar value on human life,” but every time they drink, smoke or overeat, they themselves are valuing short-term pleasure over their long-term health.Nobody infinitely values their body, and there’s nothing wrong with that decision. This choice doesn’t suddenly become wrong if they choose money — a means to both pleasure and necessity.That being said, the very last thing I want to do is put a dollar value on human life. I want people to put a dollar value on their own organs. If times turn tough, I might be willing to sell one of my kidneys for $15,000, but I probably wouldn’t for $3,000. Some would. And that difference reflects the diversity of human values.Ironically, it’s those against a free market in organ transplants who are militantly putting a dollar value on human organs — the price is zero. At that price, the only motive left is altruism.As economist Alex Tabarrok said in an article on the subject, “Altruism is a fine thing, but it is in short supply.”Prices lead to efficient distribution of resources.Altruism and top-down controls don’t.Humans own their own bodies. No one can argue otherwise without using their own bodies to make the point — an argument-imploding contradiction.You should be free to do what you want with your property as long as you’re not hurting others, even if it’s something almost as valuable as football tickets — a part of your liver.Daniel Morgan is 21-year-old   economics senior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter@TDR_dmorgan.—-Contact Daniel Morgan at [email protected]