Freedomain Radio

fingolfin:

Guys I'm not entirely convinced by your own arguments so far.  This is my one as yet unresolved 'issue' with the stateless society - will there be enough money for care for those with disabilities, the mentally challenged etc. If we can abolish the evil tyranny which is government how do we generate enough revenue from business and volunteer agencies to cover these absolutely essential services?

Are you aware that both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both self made men and both capitialists who are multi-billionaires have pledged or are donating something like 99.5% of their wealth to charity?

Do you think that poor people and single women that are poor will have more children, less children, or the same # of children when there is no state that provides them with financial incentives and rewards for having children that they are not capable of providing for?

Charities do more on a dollar for dollar basis to provide real solutions that acutally help people now, despite the government that is able to use force to externalize it's costs through forced taxation. Remove that and you get charities that inceitivise and assist people into making good choices and providing them with assistance in improving their ability to be self-sufficient while requiring that they actively participate in the process, maybe even requiring them to help someone else with greater problems than theirs as partial payment to receive the charity.,

Government has entitlement programs that encourage and reward people for making bad decisions and give free food and shelter to criminals, drug abusers, etc and do not put requirements on them that they actually work to change their ways in order to receive the 'help' lol paid for with taxes. Petty criminals and drug addicts go back and forth from prison (where they are fed and clothed and given medical care for free) to homeless shelters (where they are fed and clothed and housed for free). Charities don't work like that. Charities don't provide a bed and meals to able bodied people making bad choices for the rest of their lives without requiring that they change their ways and assume responsibility for themselves and stop abusing the rights of others.

Charities are going to discourage widespread birthing of children by people who can not afford to raise them. They are not going to give unwed mothers who are having children the fast track to a free 2 bedroom apartment and free cash so they can live for free and not do anything to improve themselves- which they then use to have a man move into so he can work and not pay rent and they have even more cash, or move a friend into.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MellodyHobson/story?id=2118501&page=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5115920.stm

Links about Warren/Gates donations etc.

anatomyofareflex:

what would happen to those who are extremely mentally ill, possibly without family, and with noone to care for them?

(this was asked to me by my fascist mother's friend during a lunch when her friend was over, and i was debating with both of them about how they should stop being such bigots about immigration)

 

i replied with
"you've pretty much answered that yourself, as by identifying that need and asking what would happen, you have plugged the whole as it is hypocritical of you to ask that and then not help them yourself"

to which she replied

"so your saying I should look after them?"

I was chucked back a bit

somehow that didn't seem to cover it for me

can anyone more intelligent spread light on this please? 

 

thanks

flex 

As mentioned, yes, if she cares what happens to them.  You should also point out that she currently IS responsible for caring for them, via her taxes, she just doesn't have a choice in the matter.

In a stateless society the actual need for charity would probably grow less and less over time.  At its core charity really isn't a desirable thing.  Of course it's great to have other people take care of you, but you don't want to be there indefinitely.  You want a mutal, give and take relationship ideally, where one party is not dependent on the benevolence of another.  And with a truly free market in health care there will probably be more cures for people with debilitating diseases, so there will be less people dependent on charity.

Here's a report on homelessness and its relationships to severe mental illness

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf

Of course, the report is arguing in favor of more statist funding, but I think it actually proves an opposing point.

While no one wants to see homeless mentally ill people wandering around the streets, the facts are this is the situation we have right now with a massive state.

Do we currently see dead homeless mentally ill bums lining the streets?

No, we do not.

Even severely mentally ill people have the capability to survive, even if it is in a poor condition.

Since we know that being homeless and mentally ill does not equate to a death sentence, and since we know that the State doesn't care for these people right now, we can say that the severely mentally ill that are unable to house themselves would CLEARLY be in a better position in a free market state of affairs.

Since we know private charitable donations would be substantial in a free market, we can say with certainty that private charities would be in a far better position to take care of these people that the State is currently neglecting.  Further, panhandlers would be in a superior position as well.  If a mentally ill homeless person is panhandling for his survival, its clear that if the general public was wealthier in general, the panhandler will increase the donations he receives.

Also, we can't forget the family unit.  Mentally ill people were born into the world so therefore it stands to reason they typically have some family that can offer them some level of support.  

In old age or under such conditions as a person truly becomes incapable of caring for themselves in any respect, private charities and church organizations would be there to pick up the slack.  Further, no one is going to walk past a 70 old starving homeless grandma lying on the road and leave her for dead.  I have enough faith in humanity that someone will step forward to make sure she gets put in a charity home or even take care of her themselves.

Even today with our outrageous criminal tax burden, we have privately run charitable homes for those that are totally destitute in old age.  As society grows richer, the problem of caring for the mentally ill would remedy itself.  Families would ultimately become wealthy enough to establish private trusts to care for their indigent members into old age subsidized by public charitable contributions.

American history is clear that in the absence of State programs, such people will survive.

I would also look to the church model.  Here we have massive castles of religious worship funded entirely through charitable donations in nearly every town in America.  It stands to reason that if a society can fund these castles and pastors voluntarily through charity, they can take care of the sick and indigent as well.

My main concern with the mentally ill is actually from an ethical side.  What ethical option do we have for dealing with the mentally ill who are too far removed from reality to make rational decisions.  Do we have any right to force them into care centers?  I am thinking Alzheimer, schizophrenia, etc.

I would hope the mentally ill would not have to deal with another "state". By examining human relations, you can say children and the mentally ill who do not practice the principles of adulthood or what makes them rational humans yet can be properly owned by guardians or parents while being open to public scrutiny. As far as children, this does not mean the guardians are the ultimate arbiters on when they can become an "adult". Other members of society can attest in them becoming "self sovereign" while being subject to public scrutiny.

@gdw, I would say parents or guardians are entitled to have their mentally ill given up to another parent/guardian or care service if the mentally ill aren't self-sovereign individuals.

Junioreality:

I would hope the mentally ill would not have to deal with another "state". By examining human relations, you can say children and the mentally ill who do not practice the principles of adulthood or what makes them rational humans yet can be properly owned by guardians or parents while being open to public scrutiny. As far as children, this does not mean the guardians are the ultimate arbiters on when they can become an "adult". Other members of society can attest in them becoming "self sovereign" while being subject to public scrutiny.

That sounds rather statist and democratic to me.

I don't see how it is statist if it is the parents/guardians themselves are choosing to do this rather than a state.

I was refering to the members of society having their say in the matter.

Members of society won't have a say as far as what you want to do with your wards or children. When I mentioned open to public scrutiny, I meant it as your actions and reputation will be open to feedback  by others either postively or negatively. For instance, say you are a guardian of a mentally ill person, and other members of society you associated with witnessed you abusing the person and having them in an insanitary home, these same people can give feedback on your character and behavior publically for others to assess whether or not they want to interact with you. Thus, your actions and reputation will be subject to Social Preferencing by others.

 A few years ago I came across an article on a free homeless shelter ran by the Red Cross.  At the time, the Red Cross required anyone who wanted to stay there to pass a drug test and either work, enroll in a jobs training and placement program provided by them for free, or enter their free drug rehabilitation program.  They had a lot of success with the program and most of the people that stayed there were out out of the home and supporting themselves within a couple of months.  But, they eventually became enticed and corrupted by "free" money from the state, who then required them to remove their restrictions on who could stay there claiming that their policies were discriminatory.   

After that, people quit donating to them because they no longer associated with and agreed with the principals they espoused, and the state took complete control of the shelter which became another EXPENSIVE, screwed-up, PERPETUAL entitlement program that CREATES poverty by REWARDING drug-use and irresponsible behavior. 

And I would bet a dime to a dollar that if you audited this homeless shelter that it costs more money (apprehended by force from the tax payers) to run the now corrupt and innefficient home than it did when it was run by the Red Cross. 

The ironic part of the whole thing is that when they spoke to the people who had been through the shelter prior to government take-over, none of them approved of the changes.  People natually don't want pity, they want to be held accountable when they are given help.  It gives them a source of pride, which is a much more effective tool of facilitating a change of destructive behavior than telling someone that they were just "unfortunate", it's not their fault, and that they can't do it on their own they need our help.

Either way, when there is twice as much money injected into the free market and put in the pockets of individuals who earned it after the removal of the state, I think it is safe to say that charities will not lack from want.  And with the steriod injection of capital that will be created, their will be an increble excess of profit that will allow for more individuals to volunteer to help the mentally ill (and anyone else who genuinely needs it).

gdw:

My main concern with the mentally ill is actually from an ethical side.  What ethical option do we have for dealing with the mentally ill who are too far removed from reality to make rational decisions.  Do we have any right to force them into care centers?  I am thinking Alzheimer, schizophrenia, etc.

What options do you think there are? In a hypothetical situation where I see someone who is acting in a way that endangers their own life I would prevent them from harming themselves as best I could. If that means restraining them then I'd do that... and certainly if they never recovered any measure of rationality then they wouldn't be able to give their consent or approval for my actions.

I think even in a case where someone is more coherent you can prevent them from harming themselves, and if they happen to be close to death and in immense pain you can apologize for making a mistake and let them continue. 

I think conditions that can be recovered from are much easier, say you force someone into a care center and they get better and can think more rationally, then I think it would be extremely rare to find someone who wouldn't thank you for putting them there. If they don't agree with being put in a care center you could always apologize and tell them the next time you see them in a demented state you won't force them into a care center. I think that's very much similar to  DNR in a hospital, without a DNR the hospital staff assume that everyone wants their life saved and will go to great efforts to do so.

J-William:

gdw:

My main concern with the mentally ill is actually from an ethical side.  What ethical option do we have for dealing with the mentally ill who are too far removed from reality to make rational decisions.  Do we have any right to force them into care centers?  I am thinking Alzheimer, schizophrenia, etc.

What options do you think there are? In a hypothetical situation where I see someone who is acting in a way that endangers their own life I would prevent them from harming themselves as best I could. If that means restraining them then I'd do that... and certainly if they never recovered any measure of rationality then they wouldn't be able to give their consent or approval for my actions.

I think even in a case where someone is more coherent you can prevent them from harming themselves, and if they happen to be close to death and in immense pain you can apologize for making a mistake and let them continue. 

I think conditions that can be recovered from are much easier, say you force someone into a care center and they get better and can think more rationally, then I think it would be extremely rare to find someone who wouldn't thank you for putting them there. If they don't agree with being put in a care center you could always apologize and tell them the next time you see them in a demented state you won't force them into a care center. I think that's very much similar to  DNR in a hospital, without a DNR the hospital staff assume that everyone wants their life saved and will go to great efforts to do so.

I am mainly concerned with cases like Alzheimer's, where it is degenerative.

There is no chance for retroactive "permission," and you would get plenty of resistance trying to restrain them from hurting themselves.

What options would we have in situations like these?