I am relatively new to this libertarian way of thinking and I have to say on the surface it is very appealing to me. One major question I have though which I haven’t gotten a clear answer on is, “What place, if any, is there for the severely disabled in a libertarian nation”? I mean, I was rendered quadriplegic and in the 11 years following my injury (with the exception of new skills acquired that work around my disability) my recovery has not been significant. At least in the immediate future, until I am fully employed, I am a burden of the state and consume more resources than I can contribute. There is, in fact, no guarantee that even once I became fully employed the situation would change. I will not get hurt by honesty so I would appreciate it if anyone who answers this would be Frank not Sue. To be clear, I have every intention of being as productive a member of society as it will let me be and for the most part the libertarian message seems conducive to my way of thinking but I have heard unsettling claims that libertarians are against the Americans with Disabilities Act. Now I will be the first to acknowledge that some people who are morally bankrupt exploit it but would anybody really want to dismantle it altogether? At some point doesn’t one say that the people or the government or someone is responsible to ensure quality of life for these people? Especially since euthanasia is illegal in the United States. Just to state my view on the matter I would like to say that I take into account the new technologies that exist today that can put more disabled people in the workplace and increase their productivity. It is my opinion that with the existing technologies today the only way you can truly not be able to contribute is if you had no feet, no hands, no eyes, and no tongue. Let Stephen Hawkins be my example. Wouldn’t it be better that we continue to finance skilled care for disabled individuals but put a much stronger emphasis on vocational rehabilitation saving permanent welfare benefits for only the most severe? Thanks for your input guys!
In the free market, people can help you by offering you cheap products. They can also provide you with a job. They can help you store your savings. They can invent technology that improves your life. They can also help people freely who are really bad off. Or they can provide insurance in case something unforeseen happens.
What they can’t do is take money from others under threat of a gun, fines or imprisonment. If that’s the way other people must be ‘helped’, then I want nothing to do with it.
“I am a burden of the state and consume more resources than I can contribute.”
Think for a while about the concept of “value”…
You surely do not provide monetary value for anyone,
but surely again there are people to whom you provide
another kind of “value”, which they choose over others.
And if you are worthless for everybody - in any sense,
then - sad to say - there is no point in even thinking of you…
That would be the most appropriate way of dealing with you!
That is why everyone must try to be of great value for
as many people as he can - or else he is always on his own…
And you can trust me - there are also many people that value
being helpful and necessary to someone disabled more than
money, he or she can provide to them in return.
Where freedom is, there are people free-willing to help.
Compare that help with one coerced by law…
Which one would you like to experience?
I think the answer is obvious…
I wish you health! This is the greatest value in life…
MariusAureus
Hello Chris,
A big component of our style of liberalism is that there is always a place for charity in the world. The idea that all hell would let loose if there were an out right abolition of social supports for the disabled and others seems to me to be unfounded. Up until the progressive era, the largest supporter of the needy were private benefactors, I forget the name, but a lady in Chicago had a large scale operation centered around assisting the poor with work, and helping them to read and write. The theory here is that billions of private actors can and do handle the complex problems of any age better than any publicly managed society.
Now as for your concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act, we are against it, primarily because rather than go about giving physically or mentally impaired persons equal protection under the law, it attempts to give favored status which actually makes employers less likely to hire them. The Las Vegas magic duo Penn and Teller did an episode on the ADA which, if I remember correctly, described the libertarian objections quite well. I’ll provide you with a link, though I should warn you if you dislike certain four letter words you may be offended. Our solution, once again, is charity.
EDIT: I wasn’t able to find a link on a streaming website, perhaps others could assist. =]
Welcome to the community by the way, the libertarian philosophy might seem unsympathetic to helping others at first glance, but on closer inspection you may find it brings us all closer together.
Well we know your brain works then. [:)]
After doing a little more reading I discovered that the Libertarian movement does in fact generally not support the Americans with Disabilities Act nor does it go very far in securing rights for people with disabilities. I almost feel like this position is inconsistent. For one thing, from what I have read the majority of libertarians are pro-life. Some to the degree of not making exceptions for severe genetic diseases or defects. So am I to assume that one would deny a potential person the right to not live a life of suffering but then would not require the whole community to contribute in some way to their welfare. Presumably, because euthanasia is illegal one would again deny this person the right to die when they are mature enough to make the choice for themselves but would then wash their hands of any responsibility to that person. Number two, the beginning of the Declaration of Independence only lists three unalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It says nothing about the right to property being unalienable. While these rights are unalienable is it not ones responsibility and is alone to secure them under the Libertarian principal. If an arrangement is made with the government to secure these rights for him is it not right that if there is a general consensus a new requirement should be added for eligibility to the security of those rights? I know that technically the libertarian principle dictates that protection of our freedoms is an inherent responsibility of the government but who determines what rights have priorities over others? Does a man’s right to property take higher priority over my right to pursuit of happiness inasmuch as my happiness relies on the ability to be able to travel freely with my friends and family and experience all the beauty and majesty this country has to offer its able-bodied citizens? If all schools are privatized and not required to provide accommodations for people with disabilities then are these private schools not denying these people a right to an education? Let’s assume for a second that we live in a country that adheres to libertarian principles. Let’s assume also that the principles presumptions about the generosity of men are correct in that 80% of private companies decided for charity or profit to accommodate disabilities. A man in a wheelchair is touring a city he has never been to before and realizes with some urgency that he needs to use the bathroom. He hastily enters the nearest building to use their bathroom. They inform them that there are no accommodations. He goes back and forth across the street from one building to another and gets the same response. Eventually his time has run out and there he sits embarrassed and ashamed as he defecates on himself in the street for all to see. Later when he asks how something like this could have happened he is informed that, “while most of the city is accessible this neighborhood has opted out of making accommodations”. To add insult to injury he then finds out these businesses are not particularly small and they could easily afford the accommodations but they have simply taken a position on principle. To some degree has he not been denied his right to a dignified existence. Libertarians have to accept a certain level and form of taxation in order to finance the government and I have read in Ron Paul’s The Revolution a simple explanation as to why it’s okay to spend some of those tax dollars on public transportation and on construction of roads and bridges that increase productivity not necessarily employment(I might be getting this confused with Economics in One Lesson). Why then is it that it would not be the government’s responsibility to secure a safe and efficient means for someone with a disability to get around as well. An airline company which is privatized provides passage for those with disabilities because of the ADA. If that requirement did not exist and neither did the requirement for accessibility than a particular city may not be accessible enough for the airlines to deem it worthwhile to provide transport to that town for people with disabilities. In effect would it not be denying that person the right to travel freely with the intent of pursuing their happiness. I see where there is the bottom-line logic in defending the libertarian principle in its most absolute form but I guess my question is where is the humanity in it? I know the principle assumes people would be naturally charitable enough to make up for all of the needs of the disabled and elderly in this country but that is a big assumption. Even with the ADA in effect there are so many places I cannot go especially in rural areas. As John F. Kennedy said, “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Through some measure of taxation the government is providing each citizen a strong defense of his rights and that is what his country is doing for him. What in turn is he doing for that country other than trying his best to accumulate wealth and make the sum total of the nation’s value greater. If one expects the government to protect his rights without fail but offers nothing in return but maintenance fees that seems strange. I am not trying to debunk the libertarian philosophy I am just simply trying to better understand it. I know my questions may not be routed in a strong fundamental understanding of libertarian principle but bear with me I am new.
“libertarians are pro-life”
Pro-freedom! - All else is… Else. This “else” is not libertarianism per se.
Hi again Chris,
I will address you concerns point by point in a way that I hope is satisfactory… These are just my opinions for the most part.
- I personally believe a person should be allowed to take their own life, and/or permit others to assist them to do so. I am also in favor of abortion if the mother so chooses. Rothbard did an interesting article on Children’s rights which you may or may not agree with, depending on how moralist you are.
-
Not to be snide, but the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. The “pursuit of happiness” clause that Jefferson wrote was in earlier drafts, as well as in John Locke and others’ works who had written the same statement, the right to property.
-
There have been schools, hospitals, and workplaces for the blind, deaf, lame, retarded, and insane for a long while, many of which are privately owned and paid for.
-
Can you make a case that there wouldn’t be any incentive to cater to specific groups of people in a market environment? And if we should be forced tp cater to your pursuit of happiness, isn’t it just that we subsidize everyone elses’ as well? My girlfriend has a pronounced fear of heights, should we dynamite all the mountains and buildings, and force all aircraft to fly low while she is on board? If you say your system is for all, but give it only to a few, that is an injustice. Now start preparing the powder.
-
Much like my above statement, do you think it reasonable that we should undertake the effort to make every humanly accessible area in the world have a wheelchair ramp? Up Everest you go.
I’ll leave the rest for others to yap on about, I need some sleep. Please do not take offense to my sarcastic writing style.
If nobody loves me or wanted me than I would simply be worth nothing, not even a thought? That would be the most appropriate way of dealing with me? Well I’m Sold![:D]
what argument if any exists on the issue of preserving the general welfare? Does that responsibility not extend to the elderly and disabled? When an elderly person’s family has all died and gone away and there is no one left to care for them does the contribution they made in their entire life no longer matter? That seems callous. Please elaborate
The idea is that you are responsible for your own life. In the case of the elderly, they are responsible to prepare for that period when they are younger (by paying for old age pension insurance, saving money, raising children, etc.) In the majority of cases, this should be sufficient.
Sometimes, of course, there can be special circumstances which leave you rather badly off (for example, if you entrust you evil children all your money, they spend it and leave you alone afterwards). Then there is again private charity to help these people out.
In case you just did not care and did not prepare for old age at all (and prefered to spend all your money to have a fun life), that would technically be tough luck, but again, there will be most likely be some pirvate charity institution (e.g. a church) that will at least keep you from starving and freezing to death.
Plus, there is the possibility of yet uncommon models emerging in a society without government, like old age communities where elderly people help each other, or communities of people of all ages, who support each other (with the elderly perhaps seeing after the meals and the children and cleaning and the younger members working). However, this is hard to tell, as there is not really a need for that at the moment as government is currently doing the job. Furthermore, by doing the job, government takes away the social power people would otherwise develop were the programme not in existance. This is just the trick by which government is trying to make everyone believe that it is absolutely necessary for a society where the weaker members are not simply left for dying. That lots of private charity existed before the government forced their programmes onto the people is unfortunately never mentioned.
And bear in mind the basic principle of Libertarianism, which is, that everyone has an absolute right to property and freedom, so no-one may take away your property for whatever reason. An old woman cannot walk into the home of her rich neighbour with a bomb strapped around her waist, saying “let me live here or I’ll blow the place”, and neither may government say “give me money so I can give part of it to the old lady and keep the rest as administration cost, or I’ll throw you into prison or just take the money anyway because there is nothing you can do about it”. Robbery, for whatever purpose, is morally rejectable. And it doesn’t matter if you call it plain “robbery” or “taxation”.
Chris,
First of all, welcome! Second of all, many of us here are people who believe that government needs consent of the governed to be just. The United States government has never obtained consent of the governed, so for many of us here, the U.S. government is just a gang of people willing to use violence on others to get their way. It has no legitimate authority.
In a world with competing governments, I do not see how something like the Disabilities Act would be enforced.
wow MariusAureus - you are spot on! that post was a great read.
Someone who is disabled will always be somewhat of a burden, if not for the state then for the community and the family. But put in a historical context, it was the development of capitalism and the division of labor that ensured the survival of the disabled. In a primitive society the unproductive could not supported with the limited resources available, and so it would be quite natural to put the elderly out on an ice floe and to underfeed sickly children until they died of some disease. The development of the division of labor made critical resources abundant and so the burden of supporting of the unproductive became tolerable. In addition, the development of the division of labor opened new lines of employment for which the disabled are qualified, and made people who are otherwise unproductive into productive, self-sustaining members of society.
This happened not because of the state but in spite of it. The state took over care for the disabled in order to increase its power, not because such care was deficient.
Historically, charity has provided schools for the disabled. But tax codes have done away with much of that.
Bathrooms as we know them today are not necessary. See this: http://www.comforthouse.com/portableurinal.html
False. True libertarians are anti-state.
Under libertarianism, rights cannot contradict each other. That is to say, that a landowner has the right to his property, but no one else can excerise a so-called right that would violate the rights of the landowner.
The humanity lies in allowing humans to live their lives without being coerced by others.
Historically, churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions have provided charity for the poor, disabled, and others in need.
Under libertariansim, the only way to become wealthy is to serve others. That is, profit can only be attained by providing a service or good to society that it wants
Welcome to the forums, Chris. Think of it this way: the reason the Americans with Disabilities Act came to be is that a substantial number of people are substantially interested in helping people with disabilities. Remove government, and those people will still exist and retain their interest in helping. However, now they can do so more efficiently, because the middleman (the government) has been cut out. The State and its Acts cannot make people more charitable or decent, it can only reduce the overall economic conditions, resulting in worse conditions for the disadvantaged. Take a look at the past 6000 years.
Please do not equate the former with the latter. I whole-heartedly oppose the Americans with Disabilities Act, and just as strongly support the protection of the rights of those with disabilities.
The Declaration of Independence is not the end-all be-all of Libertarianism. It’s a very libertarian document, to be sure, but it’s hardly a defining document. Going a bit further, the Libertarian principal of rights is based on negative rights. That is, I must refrain from killing you. I am under no obligation to protect and/or save your life, however. I must refrain from using aggression, that is, initiating or threatening violence.
It looks like you are viewing pursuing happiness as a positive, not negative, right. No one must enable your pursuit (and you have no right to force them to), but only refrain from interfering in your pursuit. Does a man’s right to property take higher priority over my right to pursuit of happiness inasmuch as my happiness relies on setting fire to his house?
I thought you said, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”…
So education is a fourth?
So now there’s the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to education and the right to a “dignified existence”? They are just piling up. I should ask, do I, a complete stranger, have a right to poop in your house? just walk in and use your toilet? If not, then why should I be forced to build my toilet for your use?
Another one? I’m keeping track: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to education, the right to a dignified existence and now, the right to travel freely.
Beyond that, in this particular case, you are faced with three choices. You can pay someone to build a plane that will accomodate you. You can refrain from flying. You can point a gun at the airline owner, and demand he become your slave, and run his business how you want him to, and kill him if he refuses. From your post, it looks like you think the third option is the best.
Why do you think he owes you anything? If I bake a cake for my family, do you think you desrve a piece, too? How then, if the airline owner flies some people from place to place, do you think he owes you a ride, too?
It is. It’s also a big presumtion that one should be able to force others, vith threats or actual violence, to help others. I’m all for charity. I’m also all against slavery.
The government is protecting our rights by violating our rights? Don’t you see the error in that?
Those “maintenance fees” are imposed, as are the services provided. I agree there’s no such thing as a free lunch. I would, however, like to choose where to eat. The government provides its services at gunpoint. If I were to walk into your house with a ham sandwich, and force you to eat it at gunpoint, would I then be justified in demanding payment? I provided you with a meal, after all. The same with any government service - force me to accept then service and the force me to pay for it.
What specifically didn’t you agree with in which Jack mentioned here?
I was saying I understand how rights are determined under this principle. I do not necessarily agree with the process
Yes. Or, if you sign a marriage contract with your wife, does that mean I am married to her too?