Who will take care of the disabled and the old?

boatBurner

shutup, crime!
Feb 24, 2012
1,522
35
0
I derp like a mother fucker on Facebook about economics and ancap ideas. And some conversations help me define my own position further. Mostly though, the more I learn about ancap, the more I enjoy the ideas, and the less I give a fuck about what's going on in present day politics.

But my wife and I were talking about it, which is good. She shows some interest in his topic, something I never really pegged her for. Her question was, what if someone has a child who born disabled or handicapped?

How does that situation play itself out in its many pathways under the ideas of an ancap society?
 


Is it societies responsibility to help someone pay for their handicapped child?

This is my argument as well.

Is it morally sound to help those in need? Sure, I have no problem helping a neighbor. But why is it my responsibility to take care of someone who can't take care of themselves when I didn't have any role in bringing he or she into the world?

What do you think the majority would think about this in an ancap society? Would they also think the same and turn away? Would they build shelters and medical facilities? How would families pay for those? Would the mentally ill and old just pile up and become a huge problem?
 
Well, without the insane taxation, we'd likely be able to keep 80%+ more of the money that's stolen from us now.. The other 20% going to the necessary privatized services that took over publicly funded services. So people would naturally be more able to financially handle situations like that on their own.

Those that do not, charity. More people would be willing to help out in a voluntary society for the reason stated above; more money in pocket.

Also, services would be much more cheap in a stateless society. From this article: How Government Solved

The principle behind the fraternal societies was simple. A group of working-class people would form an association (or join a local branch, or "lodge," of an existing association) and pay monthly fees into the association's treasury; individual members would then be able to draw on the pooled resources in time of need. The fraternal societies thus operated as a form of self-help insurance company.

Turn-of-the-century America offered a dizzying array of fraternal societies to choose from. Some catered to a particular ethnic or religious group; others did not. Many offered entertainment and social life to their members, or engaged in community service. Some "fraternal" societies were run entirely by and for women. The kinds of services from which members could choose often varied as well, though the most commonly offered were life insurance, disability insurance, and "lodge practice."

"Lodge practice" refers to an arrangement, reminiscent of today's HMOs, whereby a particular society or lodge would contract with a doctor to provide medical care to its members. The doctor received a regular salary on a retainer basis, rather than charging per item; members would pay a yearly fee and then call on the doctor's services as needed. If medical services were found unsatisfactory, the doctor would be penalized, and the contract might not be renewed. Lodge members reportedly enjoyed the degree of customer control this system afforded them. And the tendency to overuse the physician's services was kept in check by the fraternal society's own "self-policing"; lodge members who wanted to avoid future increases in premiums were motivated to make sure that their fellow members were not abusing the system.

Most remarkable was the low cost at which these medical services were provided. At the turn of the century, the average cost of "lodge practice" to an individual member was between one and two dollars a year. A day's wage would pay for a year's worth of medical care.
 
I think ancap has some of this shit worked out for the unfortunate

VLC_13.jpg
 
I derp like a mother fucker on Facebook about economics and ancap ideas. And some conversations help me define my own position further. Mostly though, the more I learn about ancap, the more I enjoy the ideas, and the less I give a fuck about what's going on in present day politics.

But my wife and I were talking about it, which is good. She shows some interest in his topic, something I never really pegged her for. Her question was, what if someone has a child who born disabled or handicapped?

How does that situation play itself out in its many pathways under the ideas of an ancap society?



Who did it in 1800?


People become more responsible when they know they will face consequences for their actions. One of the reasons more children are being born disabled is because mothers are having children much older. (down's syndrome, for instance) So I'd imagine there would be a reduced instance of that.

In addition, there is social pressure for people not taking care of themselves, since the community surrounding them will have to help. Families take care of disabled and handicapped children, instead of government taking money from faceless people. So once again, reduces instance.

The last resort is that the community does help. As someone mentioned, there would be a lot more charitable giving if people had more disposable income. A lot of that income gets wasted as governments transfer the money. Private charities are much more efficient, and consumers will choose charities that make the most of their donations, in addition to direct giving.
 
The last resort is that the community does help. As someone mentioned, there would be a lot more charitable giving if people had more disposable income. A lot of that income gets wasted as governments transfer the money. Private charities are much more efficient, and consumers will choose charities that make the most of their donations, in addition to direct giving.

But what makes this less of an assumption and something that can actually stand as a valid point?
 
Who did it in 1800?


People become more responsible when they know they will face consequences for their actions. One of the reasons more children are being born disabled is because mothers are having children much older. (down's syndrome, for instance) So I'd imagine there would be a reduced instance of that.

In addition, there is social pressure for people not taking care of themselves, since the community surrounding them will have to help. Families take care of disabled and handicapped children, instead of government taking money from faceless people. So once again, reduces instance.

The last resort is that the community does help. As someone mentioned, there would be a lot more charitable giving if people had more disposable income. A lot of that income gets wasted as governments transfer the money. Private charities are much more efficient, and consumers will choose charities that make the most of their donations, in addition to direct giving.

Basically this. Any society would help those who can't help themselves, but I am not totally ancap, so I do see a role for the state in helping care for the handicapped and disabled. In fact, I'd like to see them get much more help.

But it is correct that we get more kids with autism and more handicapped. In some demographics in Europe (don't make me elaborate), there is a lot of children born with handicaps due to inbreeding. Of course, poverty makes a great teacher, but when all your needs are met through the state, you don't see a reason to get some healthy outside DNA and instead can continue with your first cousin marriage.

Another way is simple insurance. Take a DNA test to screen for hereditary disease and then insure yourself against having a handicapped child.

What would happen would be people taking responsibility much more for their choices in general including having kids at a healthy age.

If you do think that the government takes good care of the disabled and retarded, try spending some time in such a public institution for the old, the mentally ill or the handicapped. They are treated like crap in many of those places, not like people, with no human decency.

You can't outsource compassion to people on low government wages. It doesn't work.
 
But what makes this less of an assumption and something that can actually stand as a valid point?



My initial gut response. Who did it in 1800? Communities did.

It is much like drug war issues. Government knows it will happen, and they'd like to be in on the action somehow. Or, at least certain people would like to be in on the action, and they do so by appealing to peoples' emotions.

Who could fault a politician for wanting to help people? Or insure that no one goes hungry? Pretty much no one, unless you look at the other side of the equation. They extract the money with the threat of imprisonment.

Churches and government have traditionally fought over such territory. In today's information age, private charities can be evaluated like no other time in history.

I prefer more direct giving. After the "Sandy" storm, it was easily possible to find people to send goods or money to so they could wisely distribute it. In a local environment, there are always people who will make it the goal of their life to help others. Once again, we live in an environment where it's easier to get reputation information and I trust people to be smart with their giving. Sure, there will be periodic scams, but that's better than a perpetual scam. I'm personally not religious, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't trust a small church to help those in need.
 
If an ancap society magically sprouted there would be consolidation of power and within one or two generations we'd basically have what we have now...

Power begets more power. Ultimately it becomes absolute, corrupts, degenerates, causes caos when it finishes decomposing and there are a variety of factions vying for power, then another mega power sprouts up from that.

Any attempt at revolution will ultimately end up with the same situation you can read about on Animal Farm.

I know, I know, this isn't popular because it isn't a 'solution'... but a solution to any social problem lies within the source; in other words, the populace. Most people view the elites/leaders as able to control society. They can't. They simply manipulate the situation to their advantage. Like a surfer rides a wave; but doesn't control the actual movement of water. All leaders depend on the compliance of those they lead since no leader actually performs the tasks necessary for the completion of the vision they have. In fact most of the time, those in charge simply approve what those below them propose (the Exon CEO for example has no idea about drilling, he is basically there to approve/deny requests presented to him based on his perception as to the validity/impact of the proposals present)

All that talk about the morality of taxes and such paints reality in black and white. There are no such things. Situational morality/ethics means people will perceive what is right and wrong in different ways based on different situations. And the biggest factor in morality is that of power. The powerful dictate morality to the unpowerful so that they comply more willingly. Everything else is just senseless chatter spewed from ivory towers. Theory falls short in the chaotic battle ground of reality.
 
Are you really serious when you compare the healthcare requirement of 1800 with 2013? Did you even think about it, or are you just brainwashed by anti-government types?

I mean, I also oppose the government a lot of times, but not to the point of getting rid of it completely. Come on, you are just brainwashed or too lazy to think.. just like the statists you ridicule
 
I like Stefan Molyneux's view on this:

Stefan Molyneux said:
Whenever I argue for a stateless society, I say: "The government should not provide 'X'." The response always comes back: "But how will 'X' then be provided?"

As mentioned above, the answer is simple: "Since everybody is concerned that 'X' will not be provided, 'X' will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence." In other words, since everyone is concerned that poor children might not get an education because it costs too much, those children will be provided an education as a direct result of everyone's concern.

Look, either you will help poor children get an education, through charity or volunteering, or you will not. If you will help poor children get an education, you do not have to worry about the issue. If you will do nothing to help poor children get an education, it is pure hypocrisy to raise it as an issue that you claim to be concerned about.
 
Are you really serious when you compare the healthcare requirement of 1800 with 2013? Did you even think about it, or are you just brainwashed by anti-government types?

I mean, I also oppose the government a lot of times, but not to the point of getting rid of it completely. Come on, you are just brainwashed or too lazy to think.. just like the statists you ridicule



If you are referring to me (and I think you are), I made no mention of healthcare requirements, or technology. I was referring to how goods and services are allocated, and one of those services is "help" and another is "healthcare."

It's an allocation issue, not a technology issue. You can poorly allocate (increase the costs of) better technology, but I don't see why you'd want to.
 
If an ancap society magically sprouted there would be consolidation of power and within one or two generations we'd basically have what we have now...

Power begets more power. Ultimately it becomes absolute, corrupts, degenerates, causes caos when it finishes decomposing and there are a variety of factions vying for power, then another mega power sprouts up from that.

Any attempt at revolution will ultimately end up with the same situation you can read about on Animal Farm.

I know, I know, this isn't popular because it isn't a 'solution'... but a solution to any social problem lies within the source; in other words, the populace. Most people view the elites/leaders as able to control society. They can't. They simply manipulate the situation to their advantage. Like a surfer rides a wave; but doesn't control the actual movement of water. All leaders depend on the compliance of those they lead since no leader actually performs the tasks necessary for the completion of the vision they have. In fact most of the time, those in charge simply approve what those below them propose (the Exon CEO for example has no idea about drilling, he is basically there to approve/deny requests presented to him based on his perception as to the validity/impact of the proposals present)

All that talk about the morality of taxes and such paints reality in black and white. There are no such things. Situational morality/ethics means people will perceive what is right and wrong in different ways based on different situations. And the biggest factor in morality is that of power. The powerful dictate morality to the unpowerful so that they comply more willingly. Everything else is just senseless chatter spewed from ivory towers. Theory falls short in the chaotic battle ground of reality.

The so called elite does not need to control the masses through violence. They control their minds in the same way a shepherd can control hundreds of sheep due to superior intelligence and the threat of violence from the lone shepherd dog. Or how buffalos outnumber lions 1000 to 1 yet they still all run scared instead of working together. Religion, politics, ideology are mainly tools used for differing levels of intelligence. Religion for the dumbest, politics for the middle class, ideology for the smart ones. The elite are pragmatists.
 
There was a sound argument, from Milton Friedman (I might be wrong) that charity resources would be better distributed without government agencies. Simply put you will see people in need around you and having more money (from paying no taxes) you and other concerned neighbors would be able to provide to the people in need directly. So there would be no money wasted by agencies and more importantly resources will go where they are really needed (unlike now - in many cases).

Not an easy topic...
 
Those that do not, charity. More people would be willing to help out in a voluntary society for the reason stated above; more money in pocket.

Ive said this before. But think its a good example.

The city parks comission had a budget cut. So their thoughts were to make people suffer to show they needed more budget. What they did was drop the trash service from parks and stop mowing the lawns. Guess what? Local trash companies then started picking it up for free. All the neighbors came with mowers to mow the park. Neighbors still mow most of our parks. Those people being paid $15 an hour weren't needed. Plenty of people around who enjoy the parks and don't mind taking care of them.

A few years back a tornado hit a school in a rural district 10 minutes out of town. It pretty much leveled the school. The government offered service in terms of money to pay for workers a few weeks later. Well by the time that happened all construction workers in my town had the school almost completely rebuilt. I was one of the people buying trailers full of supplies and bringing them in.

Every homeless shelter here is free and private here. Including 100% free medical care. All funded by charity. They offer free daycare too.

My father was the head accountant and wrote all budget for the Nebraska public schools. He was in charge of dispersing the funds. I always remember growing up how angry he got at the end of the year. He was a very thrifty guy and would always tell schools how to save budget ect. Well at the end of the year his bosses would make him spend every last penny he worked so hard to save. He was often forced to over pay for random unneeded items. All so that they could get more money next year. It was pretty much fraud and bullshit. He still gets angry talking about it even though he's retired.

All these people want bigger budgets, more money. But for what? Its for them, pretty plain and clear.
 
There was a sound argument, from Milton Friedman (I might be wrong) that charity resources would be better distributed without government agencies. Simply put you will see people in need around you and having more money (from paying no taxes) you and other concerned neighbors would be able to provide to the people in need directly. So there would be no money wasted by agencies and more importantly resources will go where they are really needed (unlike now - in many cases).

Not an easy topic...

Exactly. They are playing middle men and grabbing a cut. Simple as that.
 
I'd give my long opinion on this, but I'd sound too much like Dresden, so I'll just keep it short:

YOU made it and kept it to term in spite of all the testing that's available- YOU feed it.