Daily Anarchist Forum

Questions And Challenges => Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism => Topic started by: Abdabs on November 16, 2014, 02:55:32 PM



Title: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on November 16, 2014, 02:55:32 PM
If an individual is disabled-from birth- to the extent that he/she is unable to work, nor does he/she have familial support, how is he/she supposed to live in an AnCap system?


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Seth King on November 16, 2014, 06:50:47 PM
Would you donate to a charity that takes care of them?


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Victor on November 17, 2014, 12:50:01 AM
I think I would answer just about the same way Seth does, they'd probably have to rely on charity. I'd like to elaborate a little bit more though.

To begin with, what do you want to compare an ancap society to? Any group of people, with any social structure, will have problems with providing health insurance to those who can't provide for themselves.

If you want to compare an ancap system to the current system, then I would bring up the question of what effect the government currently has on the availability of healthcare. Having coercively funded, government provision of healthcare does not necessarily lead to greater accessibility. I would suggest reading the work of Roderick Long (http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html) and Kevin Carson (http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/C4SS-The-Healthcare-Crisis-A-Crisis-of-Artificial-Scarcity-by-Kevin-A.-Carson.pdf) on the effects of government involvement in healthcare, both historically and today, and on the possible alternatives available through mutual aid. Based on their work I would expect a more anarchistic healthcare system to provide more affordable access to more people than the current system; I think government involvement has decreased, rather than increased, availability over all.

For those who are disabled from birth, to the point where they can't work to provide for themselves, I would expect:

a) that enough people would be willing to help them through charity so that most of them could still live at least basically decent lives, (I realize "basically decent" is subjective, but you actually just ask how they could live at all, which is a pretty low bar,)

b) that the greater availability of healthcare that an anarchist system, (probably based largely on mutual aid,) would start off with, compared to a system with government provision or involvement, would mean an anarchist society could do at least as good a job of taking care of those who couldn't provide for themselves as a society with government involvement in healthcare,

and c) that new technologies will continue to improve both the standard of living for people with the sorts of extreme disabilities you bring up, and the ability of these individuals to overcome their disabilities and gain the ability to provide for themselves. (Think of the father that 3d-printed his son a simple hand, or of any similar technologies that may one day allow people born with almost any extreme disability to overcome their disability and act just as ably as the average person.)

I hope that helps. :)


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: ff42 on November 17, 2014, 08:27:54 PM
If an individual is disabled-from birth- to the extent that he/she is unable to work, nor does he/she have familial support, how is he/she supposed to live in an AnCap system?

There is only two answers:  Violence or Voluntary.   We can set up a system of violence to force some people to provide for the needs of others or we can set up a system of voluntary charity.   

An AnCap system, following the non-aggression principle would fight the initiation of violence and embrace the system of charity. 


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: MAM on November 21, 2014, 07:38:25 PM
The point of society is to improve the quality of life of the members. At present with the nation-States dominating the ideological landscape, most people rely on the state system to support them. Being stateless in this world isn't easy or safe. The Kurds are the largest Stateless minority in the modern world.

The reality is for practical purposes the State is what we have to use.

If we talk about Stateless societies we need to consider the Geopolitical landscape. I doubt that the world goes from pro State to Anti-State over night, though I suppose the transition could be fairly quick (a period of decades).

What does this mean? Any stateless society to exist has to be able to compete reliably with the State. There has to be some sort of institution in place to take care of the poor and handi-capped. Parallel organizations currently play a large roll in these services. Consider churches (in my town Bethel a methodist church takes food donations and redistributes them). Consider soup kitchens, the red cross etc... Now Hospitals typically bill medicare (ambulance is called a "medicare taxi" by some folks). However Ron Paul(R- Texas)  was a doctor before entering politics (in the 60s) and he made mention that the Catholic Hospital he worked was able to take care of everyone before State healthcare had come into prominence.

I live in a town on a major interstate (I40 in the USA) and every year snow comes through and shuts the interstate down from Arizona to Texas stranding people. The community comes together and feeds these people. Ultimately this problem requires a community/ social solution.





Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on December 16, 2014, 03:04:08 PM
"Across the world, people with disabilities have poor health outcomes, lower educational achievements, less economic participation and higher rates of poverty than people without disabilities"

World Report on Disability WHO
July 2011

Why should this be so?

All over the world disabled people are left to struggle on charity. Are they not, also, allowed the dignity of a right to care? We all have human rights which we bestow on each other? In Africa there are many, many, very rich people among the poor-there is no welfare-yet the disabled and they're families suffer greatly. It is not any proof that you hope that individuals will donate. Let's not gamble peoples lives and humanity on guess work.  Some countries provide universal health care-free. Great idea!

A society without taxation in a good goal for any country. I'm sure it can be done,but, not by sacrificing  the weak!-good for you if your not vulnerable.
In such a society that you speak of babies with a even slight disability will be aborted or killed-this idea was actually discussed by professionals in the UK.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/we-must-debate-mercy-killing-of-disabled-babies-say-top-doctors-7187488.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/we-must-debate-mercy-killing-of-disabled-babies-say-top-doctors-7187488.html)

Let's think again.


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Syock on January 14, 2015, 10:26:41 PM
"Across the world, people with disabilities have poor health outcomes, lower educational achievements, less economic participation and higher rates of poverty than people without disabilities"

World Report on Disability WHO
July 2011

Why should this be so?

All over the world disabled people are left to struggle on charity. Are they not, also, allowed the dignity of a right to care? We all have human rights which we bestow on each other? In Africa there are many, many, very rich people among the poor-there is no welfare-yet the disabled and they're families suffer greatly. It is not any proof that you hope that individuals will donate. Let's not gamble peoples lives and humanity on guess work.  Some countries provide universal health care-free. Great idea!

A society without taxation in a good goal for any country. I'm sure it can be done,but, not by sacrificing  the weak!-good for you if your not vulnerable.
In such a society that you speak of babies with a even slight disability will be aborted or killed-this idea was actually discussed by professionals in the UK.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/we-must-debate-mercy-killing-of-disabled-babies-say-top-doctors-7187488.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/we-must-debate-mercy-killing-of-disabled-babies-say-top-doctors-7187488.html)

Let's think again.


I call BS.

First off, if you want to talk about rights, what right do you have to threaten the lives of everyone to steal from them? 

When you look at societies with government health care systems and very socialized services, there is a incredible drop of charity as people assume it is taken care of, and tend to require their money that remains after the mass theft to keep themselves alive.  Without your death threats, perhaps people would be more charitable than you assume.  Your mention of rich people in Africa tend to be the very same ones that are causing the poverty through government theft that you advocate.   

Why don't you think again instead of making ignorant self-righteous claims.


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on January 17, 2015, 03:56:13 PM
Quote
First off, if you want to talk about rights, what right do you have to threaten the lives of everyone to steal from them?

Do you mean that governments threaten people to steal  their taxes? If so, I think that you are partly correct. Even though it is a tacit threat. I don't think it can be classed as theft. It is just unpleasant. I don't like working it doesn't mean I should stop. My family would suffer. This is just reciprocity. I want a society more like a family, not a Black Friday mob.
In the 19th century England a free market held sway. The lower classes lived in miserable stinking conditions; over worked and under paid. Yes, people did give in charity. The 19th century philanthropists' work are well known. Their charity did not solve poverty nor would it be the same in a anarchic free market society. Just because the government disappears it doesn't mean that people get nicer. Besides there is no evidence, what so ever, that they would be more charitable; I wish they had been and would be so.

Quote
Without your death threats

You seem to be saying that I made death threats. Your weird claim makes me confused and a bit  scared.  :-\ :'( I call: emotive argument therefore a fallacy.

Quote
there is a incredible drop of charity as people assume it is taken care of,
Why not have a society that shares as default. Many political theorist have tried to eliminate taxes-which is a great idea. I hope they do. No one likes to pay taxes. Hell, I hate paying for anything. Wouldn't that make me a thief.

Quote
Your mention of rich people in Africa tend to be the very same ones that are causing the poverty through government theft that you advocate.   
Please explain this more: I'd like to know how.
 



Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Syock on January 17, 2015, 09:10:56 PM
You seem to be saying that I made death threats. Your weird claim makes me confused and a bit  scared.  :-\ :'( I call: emotive argument therefore a fallacy.

If you are complicit in the act, you are guilty of it as well.  

It is not sharing when those that can't or won't pay go to jail and are robbed anyway, and those that refuse to go to jail will die in the attempt.   It is not something people do because they want to.  

That confused and scared feeling you claim should be claimed by all when hearing the uttering of those that advocate the state, for the tacit threat is quite real when you test it.  It is no better than the racketeering schemes run by the Mafia, just hidden under a veil of legitimacy as slavery once was. 

If it was really sharing, it would be charity.  I do advocate sharing, you advocate theft and murder.


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on January 18, 2015, 06:08:36 AM
I don't advocate the state. I don't see the problem with cooperating for mutual benefits. I'm undecided about the way anarchism can be achieved. Do we need a state to educate people in the coming system. Or just say what the hell and jump right in. We don't need another Spanish civil war. I'm very aware that Ancap differs quite considerably from anarcho-communist theory. Maybe, Benjamin Tucker was correct that we don't need a revolution. Anarchism whether it's capitalist or mutualist or what ever needs a  lot of care and planning to apply. I find it hard to believe that just dismantling the state will work; people may suffer considerably.
 I don't think voluntary charity gives disabled people dignity.

Again I don't support the concept of the state ultimately. A transition state with a syndicalist propaganda maybe necessary. Counter revolution is ugly and costly.

I need to read about mutualism. I've got a Proudhon reader that I haven't even touched yet. I have an interest in cooperatives etc. But economics isn't may forte. 

I'm not someone who ignores opposite opinions. If anyone knows of  a good book about the healthcare issue please let me know.

At this stage I don't think I would like to live your Ancap society.


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on January 18, 2015, 12:23:15 PM
I've just found a great video with Slavoj  Zizek: I hope you find it interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ) :)



Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: MAM on September 26, 2015, 11:35:18 AM
All rights are derived from force.

You cannot reify a right, it's a concept if you want the concept to be manifest you need to defend it. The gods do not defend them for you.


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on December 13, 2015, 03:48:25 PM
Under your profile picture your motto reads (accessed 13/12/15)   "Life is sacred".

I agree with this this motto; that's why we should share resources to heal the sick.

If "Life is sacred" then it has a right to exist therefore rights are innate to humans.

I would like to invite you to exchange ideas on Human Rights here:

https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,3284.0.html (https://dailyanarchist.com/forum/index.php/topic,3284.0.html)


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: macsnafu on January 01, 2016, 04:31:35 PM
If an individual is disabled-from birth- to the extent that he/she is unable to work, nor does he/she have familial support, how is he/she supposed to live in an AnCap system?

There are different ways to answer this.  The short answer is charity, as has already been mentioned, but this fails to take into account the ways that an ancap society would differ from the current status quo. 

For example, taken altogether, taxes take about half of people's incomes away from them.  So without taxes, every worker would practically double their income, meaning they would have more to give to friends, family, and charities. 

Of course, some of that extra money would go towards paying for private alternatives to the current government 'services'.  But not all the extra money would.  For one thing, some government services and expenses are truly unnecessary and unwanted, and only forced upon us by the legal authority of government.  For another, government and government bureaucracy is well-known to be less efficient at providing services, as they have little incentive for doing so, or for lowering costs and increasing productivity.  So private alternatives to government services would tend to be cheaper and more cost effective.

And then there's the consideration that many government laws and regulations impede progress, inhibit productivity, and generally make it harder to get jobs and provide various goods and services.  Minimum wage laws, licensing, zoning regulations, government-granted monopolies, the FDA, government copyright, central banking, and many more things governments do make it harder for people to get jobs, start new businesses (thus providing competition and more jobs), and generally make goods and services provided by private businesses more expensive than they need to be. 

Thus, without government impediments, goods and services would be generally cheaper and easier to obtain, productivity would increase so that people could make even more money or work less to take care of their needs and desires, and monopolies and cartels would be nearly non-existent or ineffective.

All of which would mean that in an ancap society, it would be cheaper and easier to help those who are truly unable to support or take care of themselves, while those who are able will find it easier to take care of themselves and in less need of charity and assistance, freeing up charity and assistance for the more needy.  Even partially-disabled people would be able to at least partially support themselves, even if they need some assistance to make ends meet.

If life is truly sacred, then doesn't it make sense to stop impeding the ability of people to improve, to progress, and to provide for themselves and for others, including the disabled you're concerned about?  Governments are the biggest man-made obstacles to progressive and productive society.


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: Abdabs on February 27, 2016, 05:19:48 PM
If an individual is disabled-from birth- to the extent that he/she is unable to work, nor does he/she have familial support, how is he/she supposed to live in an AnCap system?

There are different ways to answer this.  The short answer is charity, as has already been mentioned, but this fails to take into account the ways that an ancap society would differ from the current status quo. 

For example, taken altogether, taxes take about half of people's incomes away from them.  So without taxes, every worker would practically double their income, meaning they would have more to give to friends, family, and charities. 

Of course, some of that extra money would go towards paying for private alternatives to the current government 'services'.  But not all the extra money would.  For one thing, some government services and expenses are truly unnecessary and unwanted, and only forced upon us by the legal authority of government.  For another, government and government bureaucracy is well-known to be less efficient at providing services, as they have little incentive for doing so, or for lowering costs and increasing productivity.  So private alternatives to government services would tend to be cheaper and more cost effective.

And then there's the consideration that many government laws and regulations impede progress, inhibit productivity, and generally make it harder to get jobs and provide various goods and services.  Minimum wage laws, licensing, zoning regulations, government-granted monopolies, the FDA, government copyright, central banking, and many more things governments do make it harder for people to get jobs, start new businesses (thus providing competition and more jobs), and generally make goods and services provided by private businesses more expensive than they need to be. 

Thus, without government impediments, goods and services would be generally cheaper and easier to obtain, productivity would increase so that people could make even more money or work less to take care of their needs and desires, and monopolies and cartels would be nearly non-existent or ineffective.

All of which would mean that in an ancap society, it would be cheaper and easier to help those who are truly unable to support or take care of themselves, while those who are able will find it easier to take care of themselves and in less need of charity and assistance, freeing up charity and assistance for the more needy.  Even partially-disabled people would be able to at least partially support themselves, even if they need some assistance to make ends meet.

If life is truly sacred, then doesn't it make sense to stop impeding the ability of people to improve, to progress, and to provide for themselves and for others, including the disabled you're concerned about?  Governments are the biggest man-made obstacles to progressive and productive society.

Thanks, that was a clear answer. I suppose that: just because there is no government people wont just become mean and uncharitable. I have heard that people would have a higher income in such a society; but if people have more disposable income would companies adjust their salary levels to suit the lower prices? Could people in the long run earn less?


Title: Re: Health Care and long-term disability
Post by: macsnafu on May 01, 2016, 12:39:36 PM

I have heard that people would have a higher income in such a society; but if people have more disposable income would companies adjust their salary levels to suit the lower prices? Could people in the long run earn less?

Sorry, I meant to answer this a long time ago, and got distracted.  Also, I've been trying to think of an adequate and appropriate response.

I guess what really bothers me about this idea is the implication that employers/capitalists are deliberately evil, cold-hearted bastards, which at best is a broad generalization, and at worst, a simple, propagandist lie.

 The short answer is quite simply that employers pay wages based on the market for labor, and with little or no concern for how much goods and services those wages can buy.  Even an especially empathic and concerned employer who was concerned about the "living wages" of his employees would find himself constrained to a large degree by the going market rates for labor.  And I do mean "rates" plural, because while labor is to a large degree a commodity, it's also not homogenous.  A skilled welder or computer programmer is going to command a higher rate than your typical fast food worker because their skills make them more productive and thus worth more to the employer.  No person who manages to hold a job for any length of time truly remains an "unskilled laborer", because they are gaining skills on the job and increasing their value to the employer. 

Having said that there is no direct relationship between wages and how much goods and services those wages can buy, it seems clear that there may well be some indirect relationship, but given the complexity of the economy, the relationship itself may not be obvious or clear-cut.  That is, one change in the economy can and does have rippling effects that will eventually affect the entire economy, but it is difficult to determine exactly what the overall effect of a change may be. 

Let's look at a minimum wage increase, for example.  It's obvious that increasing the minimum wage will affect the economy, but in what way?  The money to pay for the higher wage has to come from somewhere else in the economy, but as minimum wage laws don't specify *how* employers should pay for the higher wage, there are several options open and different results may occur.  Employers may raise the price of the good or service they sell to cover the increase, but if they do that, they may lose business to the competition or to substitute goods and services if fewer consumers are willing to pay the higher price.  Or employers may demand more work or more responsibilities of their existing employees and resist hiring new employees until they absolutely have to, but this may result in the demoralization of their employees and also contribute to higher unemployment as people find it harder to get a job. Employers may find ways to increase the productivity of their employees to help cover the wage increase, but doing so also requires finding the money, the capital, in order to increase productivity. 

And there are possibly other employer options, and employers may employ different possible combinations of options, instead of just one option.  All of these options will change the economy in different ways, and in any reasonably large and complex economy, the changes are difficult to follow and determine, even for professional economists. This is why economists rely upon economic models to help understand and explain the economy, and why the basics of economics, even for laymen, is so useful and worthwhile.  Economists know that price controls like the minimum wage deviate from consumer demand and thus have adverse effects on the goods and services available to consumers, even if determining the exact result of those effects is difficult or impossible. 

In short, it's nonsense that employers deliberately set wages based on how much goods and services those wages can buy - it's determined by the supply and demand of labor in the market.  However, given the complexity of the interactions between supply and demand in the economy, it seems likely that there must be some kind of indirect relationship between wages and the availability and cost of goods and services.  If there are economists who have clearly determined or formulated this relationship, however, I'm not aware of it. 

One more point, in case I didn't make it clear.  What matters most is not the actual, nominal rate of wages, but how much goods and services that wage can buy.  $5.00/hour is a great wage if a loaf of bread only costs 10 cents, but a terrible wage if a loaf of bread costs $10.  This is one of the problems with minimum wage laws, that they only specify nominal wage rates, without considering the actual purchasing power of the wage.