Let's first review the range of non-libertarian solutions. I think it is important to look at the world without rosy-colored glasses and see that the state is an uncertain caretaker. Then we can look at alternatives.
Presumably I don't need to detail how government-led initiatives in Nazi Germany dealt with "people that have physical, emotional and cognitive disabilities." Some of their approach, at least before they turned to industrialized murder, was learned from American Progressives who advocated forced abortion and forced sterilization for undesirables, in order to purify the bloodlines. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, had an especial interest in eugenics, in her words to ensure "more children from the fit, less from the unfit." The Soviet Union took a different approach, perverting the medical sciences with fabricated mental diseases, like Sluggish schizophrenia, in order to force commitment of political dissidents.
These are all examples of how the state "takes care" of those who they think are unable to take care of themselves. It is entirely an ill-founded notion to presume that all-powerful state institutions will be perpetually motivated by noble intention. Just because we have a welfare state that appears to us today to be relatively benign does not mean it will always be that way. Political leadership changes. Crises occur. Power has a way to corrupt. And in any case, what we have today is running an unsustainable deficit. It will change. The question is, to what?
So then, how do non-state actors care for those who cannot care for themselves. We can certainly parade out negative examples here as well. The ancient Athenians exposed their undesired infants to the elements -- "potting" them as it was called, entombing them in earthenware -- outside the city limits. Today we have abortion.
On a more positive note, before the New Deal we had a wide range of active fraternal orders and trade associations where members would offer each other mutual insurance against being unable to work. We're familiar with this kind of risk pooling today via Social Security Disability Insurance, although there is nothing in the concept that requires state control. It would just as well be privately run, by competing firms. In fact we have private supplemental long term disability insurance today.
So what is the difference between a 30 year old rendered incapable of working by an accident -- a risk that clearly can be insured against -- and a child born with a condition that will make them unable to work in adulthood? The main difference is the unborn cannot purchase insurance. So this would need to be something that the parents would need to purchase. But what, you say, if the parents cannot afford to buy insurance? Well, what if they could not afford to buy food? Or buy clothing? Or pay the rent? Well, then maybe they should not have children. I don't see it as a natural right that everyone can have children whose upkeep is funded at taxpayer expense. If we eliminate government subsidies for having children it will clarify the expectation that parents must provide for their children in a prudent way.
And lets not forget the role for private charities in helping those few who fall between the cracks.
I think this is a useful way to look at other similar problems. Ask yourself, 1) What is the risk? 2) How can it be insured against? 3) How can the cost of risky behavior be aligned with those causing the higher risk? State-centered approaches have no magic to do better then this. They merely use force to encourage bad behavior and do it while running budget deficits.
Read other related questions on Quora:
- Libertarianism: When do children own themselves, if at all?
- In an ideal libertarian world, what happens to people who can't afford to pay for critical health care?
- What are reasons some people change from libertarians to liberals?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2fvzPNY
No comments:
Post a Comment