How could a libertarian or stateless society provide essential services for the handicapped such as wheelchair ramps, accessible bathrooms, braille in public facilities etc. What if the handicapped were in such a minority that there was lno profit incentive to provide these services. Is it morally justified to tax others to provide these services? Is it a duty of society to care for those who are incapable of taking care of themselves even through no fault of their own?
Whenever I present an argument for very limited government or anarchy, inevitably someone will ask "well how would such and such group be taken care of?" I can realistically see how markets could emerge to care for poor, sick, feeble minded, or otherwise disadvantaged people. And that private charity would shoulder some of the burden. However, what happens when private charity is not enough?
Then it's not enough. People think that's cruel/heartless, but they are even more cruel and heartless to believe that their sense of "compassion" means that they have the right to steal from others to give to those they think are "less fortunate". Their "compassion" does not give them leave to steal. Remind any who try emotive pleas.
Joe Garceau:provide essential services
If it is essential, there is a market for it, yes?
Joe Garceau:What if the handicapped were in such a minority that there was lno profit incentive to provide these services.
As the division of labour becomes more sophisticated, niche markets, and the "long tail" are very profitable and increasingly receive service.
Joe Garceau:"well how would such and such group be taken care of?"
By free people, making free choices without being driven out of the market by monopolistic government competition.
Joe Garceau:what happens when private charity is not enough?
Oh, well that's when we abandon our principles, coerce and steal again just like under the state. This libertarian thing is really just for fun, we're not serious about property rights, morality or ethics.
Aside from charities, there'd also be a revival of friendlies. My response is pretty much what BAAWA and LS said, other than that.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Free market is not some mystical entity with a magic wand that makes everything ok. Market is the sum of voluntary actions of living, breathing people. Therefore it is not "the market" that can provide anything it is the people that take part in it. So if people are charitable there will be enough charity and if people are not charitable there will be no charity. That is as far as it goes. From here on it is only a question of wether you have faith in people or if you do not. But if you do not, then there is no political ideology that can offer you anything, libertarianism being no exception.
I see, so those who are not able to support themselves are to be left to die if they cannot afford to pay for the services they require or private charity doesnt provide enough. I agree with you, although it is a tough position to argue without coming off as a social darwinist. It is basically a choice of preserving the individuals right to property and the fruits of their labor even over dividing the wealth to ensure a basic level of subsistence for the most handicapped in society.
Joe Garceau: I see, so those who are not able to support themselves are to be left to die if they cannot afford to pay for the services they require or private charity doesnt provide enough. I agree with you, although it is a tough position to argue without coming off as a social darwinist. It is basically a choice of preserving the individuals right to property and the fruits of their labor even over dividing the wealth to ensure a basic level of subsistence for the most handicapped in society.
If most of the people were social darwinists then under free market conditions society would indeed come to resemble social darwinism. But social darwinists are actually few and rare in between thus the outcome would be different.
Joe Garceau:I see, so those who are not able to support themselves are to be left to die if they cannot afford to pay for the services they require or private charity doesnt provide enough.
No. We can't leave them to die. They might attract parasites and disease. We need to kick them to the brink of death, and then throw them in a dump truck which will take them to a public incinerator.
I wouldn't assume people lack compassion that government does. Remember, government doesn't provide out of altruism, but to reinforce it's power. The private sector always provides MORE charity MORE effectively than the state.
Joe Garceau:It is basically a choice of preserving the individuals right to property and the fruits of their labor even over dividing the wealth to ensure a basic level of subsistence for the most handicapped in society.
Or in other words, "do no harm" sometimes leads to hard choices. Libertarianism/anarchy doesn't promise perfect solutions. It promises moral ones. You will still have poverty, violence, hate. Food might run out. A valley might get flooded. It's our belief that the market is the best way to deal with issues of property and scarcity. That it is the most moral, and efficient. No one is promising a socialist utopia (if we only had more money, more government, more laws).
So when people ask you "how will you solve A or B", that is being setup. Libertarianism doesn't have to solve every dilemma absolutely and to perfection to be valid. The question about the opposite approach (statism/socialism/fascism) is whether or not it is right to do harm to innocents in order to accomplish compasaionate goals.
Interestingly enough, it was factory labor in the days of the Industrial Revolution that first granted handicapped people the opportunity to make a living on their own, without relying on church, family or "freak show" types of charities (see Lefevre's audio lectures on the IR on mises.org).So much for social darwinism.
If there were a free market, then the handicapped could design an entire city specifically for them, and engage in a division of labor with the rest of society in order to live at the same standards while enjoying specifically adapted environments.
As things stand it is not possible to build a handicap city because the government monopolizes city production, and tries to impose half-measures of accessibility on every city.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Joe Garceau:braille in public facilities etc.
Public facilities? Like state prisons?
Peace