How would the handicapped be treated in a voluntary society?
Since the free-market is currently the superior outgrowth of voluntary interaction between humans, I would like to know how the handicapped (be they mentally retarded, those with psychiatric disorders (e.g. Schizophrenics) or those with physical handicaps (like an amputee.)) would be treated.
When I say ‘treated’ in the free-market, I mean how will they be employed, recieve education, transportation, what is the benefit of removing physical barriers (can’t use the stairs, etc) for businesses, among other things.
I don’t have a deep understanding of the capacities of various handicapped people, but they would be treated worse in some ways and better in other ways. Worse in the sense that government wouldn’t be stepping in and forcing businesses to create handicapped parking areas, ramps, etc. Such things would be up to the market, so if businesses really valued their handicapped customers and/or employees, they would create handicapped parking areas, ramps, etc. Better in the sense that it would be easier for mentally handicapped people to find a job. The minimum wage and union activities are a huge barrier for the very low skilled mentally handicapped labor. With the elimination of these, it would be easier for the handicapped to work and advance in pay with on the job training.
As for education the handicapped would probably benefit from going to schools that are specialized for them. Our modern public school system not only fails “regular” school children, but the handicapped as well. They could benefit from being taught by specialists who understand certain mental and/or physical disabilities and how to teach children with those disabilities the best way.
Before we go into the specifics I want you to consider a possibility, that government gives to the handicap unnatural privileges that would never be duplicated in a free society.
The case of mentally handicapped is pretty straight forward, they would be cared for by their family. In the case of a person who’s abilities were not sufficient to support themselves, if their family rejected them and no charitable person took them in, then they would likely die. Its important to remember that while this may not be a utopian outcome, it is the natural outcome. Just as the State seeks to shelter us from the reality of scarity, it seeks to suspend the natural order and give life to all. But it is not capable of achieving either. These are the promises it uses to trick us into surrendering ever more of our power to it, but you’ll find that the more power we surrender the greater we feel scarcity and mortality. The market is best able to pull men out of the natural poverty that we are all born into, but as the state grows the market must diminish.
If the only people who survive are those who are fit to survive, the market is able to greatly expand the ranks of those who are able to survive. Humans are social creatures, without cooperation we would not exist as a species. If individuals were cut off from contact with other humans and forced to survive on only their own labor many people die. Yet these same individuals survive within society even without handouts from others. The market, through cooperation and division of labor, allows us to employ our labor in ways that yield far greater returns. This means the amount of labor required to support one self is reduced, allowing more people to be able to do so.
Ultimately, whats in the best interest of the handicap is what’s in the best interest of everyone: defending society from the destruction wrought by the State.
I would submit that the TRUE root causes of some conditions would dissapear. Some “handicaps” bear direct links to dietary, and environmental deficiencies or toxicity. Consider flouridated water/toothpaste, pasteurized/homoginized milk, pasteurization of juices, peanut butter made with sugar, oh lets not forget the links between vaccinations, and autism.
Would we see an end to them all? No. Perhaps less frequent, and less severe. While they would not necessarily cause a person to become handicapped ( Downs Syndrome, Epilepsy, etc.), however an under-nourished condition, that causes a biochemical imbalance in the parent during gestation, just might.
I’ve studied nutrition, yoga, and functional fitness for about the last 10 years and been made aware of the body’s natural ability to heal itself when provided the right stuff.
The answer is simple and goes on countless times each day. The families and charities would take care of people unable to take care of themselves. These folks already pick up the slack where government force failed. The government crowds out charities that help these people. There are thousands of churches, aid charities, foundations, etc who exist to help handicapped or mentally ill or other folks. In fact the government does such a poor job and the families strapped by taxes and regulations often leave the handicapped to over loaded charities.
The charities are overloaded because the government steals money from the citizenry. The citizenry would love to help but with 28% federal tax, 6% anti-social in-security, 1.5% medicare, 2% state, 1% local, 6% sales, 20% capital gains etc the citizenry is mostly broke. If you doubt this then think what would happen if people stored the 12% of their income “invested” in Anti-Social In-Security and gave it to their heirs, some of whom may be handicapped? What percentage of their income would they give to churches and other charities without this theft?
What about working handicapped folkes? Government screws these folks the most. Minimum wage law prevents these folks from competing with others. Then to trick the dopes out there, government throws some incentives, bones, to the employeers so they think it is their fault they can’t hire handicapped workers.
As for access and other “rights”? If business wanted the money from these folks then they would provide access. Think of how may Senior Citizens go to a mall each day. If there were no reserved parking spaces for them then they would go someplace else?
Free markets work and have worked thorugh out the majority of the existence of the United States. It was not until we found the benefits of government that this changed.
Flouridated water is no joke & has been studied & debunked by science. It is being (mostly) denied currently as a political hot potatoe for that reason. I don’t buy into potential conspiracy theories into, however; I think it was a stupid choice made by government at a time when quieter, more sound voices of scientists whom dissaproved of it for the correct reasons, were overwhelmed by frauds who didn’t know what theyr were talking about, or didn’t check their research.
Everything we consume or eat potentially has hazards.
However, the link between vaccinations & autism is a red herring & not fully supported by science.
There have been a lot of good points about negative effects the government has on the living standards of the handicapped. Here’s another one:
Government wasting money on bureacracy, waging wars, subsidies and other inefficiencies consume capital. Had this capital not been consumed but invested in productive fields we would have much more production. Anything that increases our productivity can only help us provide for those that need our help. 2000 years ago we would not be able to sustain a fraction even of those not handicapped today, because we would lack the necessary capital to do so.
The truth is though, that economic science can’t predict the extent as to which this and the other effects mentioned would increase the living standards of the handicapped. We know that they would have a positive impact, but it is theoretically possible that the grants and benefits the handicapped recieve today from the government are in total larger than what the gains would have been from switching to a voluntary society.
I think it’s safe to say that the handicapped would be greatly facilitated by the use of the internet.
As a side note, I’m wondering if some handicapped people could use themselves as advertisements. Like those seeing eye dogs, slap a brand name on him! Sounds good to me. Gnome sane?
LOL - Sorry, I did mean “potential links to autism”. There is still more evidence to uncover.
I will take to task that same science, which brought us such gems as Vioxx. In the end this all circles back to big business and government in bed together.
People wouldn’t be spending trillions on wars creating thousands more of them. There would be much more money to supply to charity, and much less demand on those charities since the number of handicapped would most likely decrease. So I have a feeling they’d be much better off.
The usual and correct answer is “the free market takes care of everything”.
Suppose that building handicapped ramps and access is expensive. In that case, all the handicapped people would move to the same area, and such structures would become economically feasible.
There would be businesses that cater to their labor, or they would start their own businesses. A handicapped person wouldn’t earn as much as someone who isn’t disabled.
Consider age discrimiantion laws. Since an older worker can’t be easily fired, then businesses are reluctant to hire older workers. Similarly, laws that protect handicapped workers make it harder to hire a handicapped work.
Some handicaps/diseases, such as mental illness, are completely fabricated by the pharmaceutical industry. The “chemical imbalance” theory of mental illness is nonsense. The chemical imbalance is caused by the drugs that are forced on people labeled with a mental illness. In the vast majority of cases, if not all of them, anti-psychotic and anti-depressant drugs are damaging and addictive.
Although I won’t respond to all the points made here, I will say that I have found that the strongest argument and common underlying premise in other’s comments in support of removing government from “helping the disabled” is that government misallocates resources and capital, while the market is the most efficient at allocating resources and capital.
I think I will use this as my main argument when discussing this issue with my friend.
Thanks for all the replies. My question is answered. But of course, you are still free to post.
I’d use them as doorstops. The more active ones I’d hang sandwich boards on and have them wheel around advertising my business. In exchange, I’d let them live under my porch. Any food that makes it’s way down there from my lavish outdoor parties is theirs for the taking.
Anytime the state tries to make us sympathetic to other people’s needs, they inadvertantly make those people a social pariah that no one is willing to take a chance in hiring because they may be sued under some new progressive law.
