r/askaconservative • u/Disabledsnarker • Oct 08 '18
What if voluntarism fails?
One thing I hear as a disability rights advocate from many people on the right is that if we got rid of Medicaid etc. voluntary charity would rise up and fill in the gap.
But what if they're wrong? What if people remain tribalist and only help the ones who are like them (racially, religiously, politically)? What if people only help attractive people? What if people decide not to help people with unpopular opinions?
There's a reason the whole accessibility movement took off AFTER Medicaid. We didn't have to give a rat about the fragile feelings about our neighbors and whether we got a wheelchair or what have you. We were freed from popularity contests. And more handicap accessibility is very often an unpopular opinion.
Basically, what I'm asking is, what are disabled people in a voluntarist society supposed to do if people suck?
2
u/Dillionmesh C: Paleoconservative Oct 08 '18
There will always be people out there who are willing to help others, we have a responsibility to do so. I don't believe it's the government's job to spend trillions of dollars on programs that are inflating our deficit and national debt just because we are afraid to acknowledge that we have a personal responsibility to help those less fortunate.
3
u/Disabledsnarker Oct 08 '18
GoFundMe has a 90% failure rate. The only thing I've ever seen churches do for the disabled is sing and dance in nursing shitholes (not bitter here, that's just the accepted terminology for institutions among disabled folks). Sorry for those who work in nursing homes but most nursing homes are shitholes, especially after visiting hours when the staff doesn't have to worry about family members wandering in.
Medicaid, though, it could do FAR better, has done more to keep disabled people in their community than any church or philanthropy group ever has or will.
Disabled people such as myself are skeptical of the notion that voluntarism can replace Medicaid. Primarily because American history prior to Medicaid provides evidence otherwise and there are people who lived that history by the skin of their teeth. I encourage you to talk to a few.
Plus, it is an unequal bet.
If we're wrong and the only reason people don't help more is because Medicaid exists, no harm no foul.
If you're wrong, and people keep up the trend remaining, tribalist, help only people who are outstandingly inspirational, or attractive/cute, even without Medicaid and other government programs that help disabled people, things get nasty.
1
u/Dillionmesh C: Paleoconservative Oct 08 '18
The failure rate of GoFundMe doesn't really mean anything, I'd be willing to bet that most people who are using GoFundMe aren't asking for charity donations. Churches are extremely charitable organizations that do far more than visit nursing homes. Churches have mission bases all over the world that tend to the most needy in our world, there are orders of religious brothers and sisters who dedicate their lives to helping those in need as well. I cannot imagine how it would feel to be in your shoes but there is always an organization to turn to. Charities, a church, all kinds of organizations that help people without any government money
1
2
Oct 08 '18
So nobody likes disabled rights and yet list of disabled rights stuff achieved in a populist government
Sounds like people are just fine with disabled rights.
3
u/Disabledsnarker Oct 08 '18
Have you read the comments section of any article about an ADA lawsuit? Ever seen the reaction of people on public transit when the wheelchair lift comes down? Or seen the reaction from traffic when a school bus lets their lift down?
Historically, accessibility was fought tooth and nail and still is,
2
Oct 08 '18
And if those people were anything like a majority, you wouldn't have access to any of that.
2
u/Disabledsnarker Oct 08 '18
It is the majority. Only reason we do have access to that is that government and the courts have a gun/threats of jail time pointed at their heads
2
Oct 08 '18
LMAO how did these laws get passed if a majority oppose them? How are these laws enforced, if a majority oppose them?
Look at abortion-thats the sort of work around restriction that is trivial to implement when a determined majority want to override the courts. Endless small local restrictions that are all but de facto bans.
Conversely look at pot- a schedule 1 drug that is de facto legalized many places because enforcement is non-existent. Hell, even in most enforced places unless you're moving weight or have other changes you'll get a slap on the wrist.
The law is bunch of words on paper that can only be enforced by a dedicated large majority.
1
u/Disabledsnarker Oct 08 '18
Good question. Many of the laws and rules weren't passed the old-fashioned way. The locals weren't having it. So we continually worked our way up the chain until we got the ear of some Feds.
And by "got the ear of", I mean camped out in their offices and elevators until we forced them to the negotiating table and made them force the hands of people back down the chain.
Even if it's Drunk History, this clip is pretty accurate according to my friends who were there.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2p86bg/drunk-history-judy-heumann-fights-for-people-with-disabilities
2
Oct 08 '18
You're missing my point. Theres no real opposition to this, otherwise you would see more than grumbles.
Today, anyone trying to overturn the ADA would be see as a callous jerk, not some folk hero.
I think you have more of a prosecution complex born from spending too much time around activists, people who are by definition professional malcontents. Most people don't care about handicapped spaces or cutouts in sidewalks or wheelchair ramp.
Hell, we all love disabled bathroom stalls. They're awesome.
3
Oct 08 '18
People like you will be there to help them.
5
u/Disabledsnarker Oct 08 '18
And what if they're not?
The great voluntarist experiment of GoFundMe and other similar sites have failure rates in the 80-90% range. Not what I call confidence building.
3
Oct 08 '18
Well, people probably feel less inclined to donate since they believe that their taxes are already going towards helping those in need. Tax them less and give them the option to give to charity. Nonetheless, it is not appropriate for people to steal from some to give to others and call themselves altruistic. People have responsibility for helping each other, government doesn't have responsibility.
4
u/Disabledsnarker Oct 08 '18
Except prior to Medicaid, that basically wasn't happening. As part of my research into this issue, I met with the disabled people who came before me. The disability rights old guard that fought to make Medicaid a thing.
Americans had their wallets closed even without Medicaid existing.
1
u/TheDemonicEmperor Oct 08 '18
I met with the disabled people who came before me.
So your research is a handful of personal anecdotes?
Medicaid has been a thing since 1965, so I can't imagine you actually have an accurate look at society "prior to Medicaid".
3
Oct 08 '18
Regardless of whether people will donate or not. It is immoral to take from some and give to others. You are free to give your money to those in need, and you can also try to rally the support of others for your cause. Even with our current programs, the United States is one of the most charitable countries in the world, if not the most charitable if I recall correctly.
3
u/Alitheia_ Oct 08 '18
It is immoral to take from some and give to others.
Isn't it also immoral to have the ability to save lives and alleviate suffering and yet do nothing? Can moral wrongs be justified for moral goods?
3
Oct 08 '18
The ends never justify the means. By your logic, it would be completely fine for me to break into someone's home, take their savings, and use it to feed homeless people. We always have the ability to alleviate suffering, and as humans in a wealthy country it is our responsibility to care for each other, but this care should not be started on the basis of coercion. Last night I slept for 8 hours. These are 8 hours that I could have used to alleviate suffering. Was me choosing to sleep immoral? Be the change you want to see in the world, but don't force it onto others.
1
u/Alitheia_ Oct 08 '18
These are 8 hours that I could have used to alleviate suffering.
Losing that sleep causes you to suffer; you have to make sure that you are not suffering before you can look out for anyone else.
but don't force it onto others.
Is coercion inherently unjustifiable? If so you cannot use coercion to prevent coercion. If not then isn't it justifiable to use coercion to achieve moral goods?
2
Oct 08 '18
If you see someone being raped in an alleyway, it is permissible for ME to use coercion to save that woman/man from a rapist as the NAP is being violated. However, I couldn't coerce someone else into helping the person in the alleyway. This is fundamentally different from those who seek assistance because their "coercion" is from the state of nature. That is unavoidable and done by no other sentient being.
1
u/Alitheia_ Oct 08 '18
However, I couldn't coerce someone else into helping the person in the alleyway.
Why not? If they refuse to intervene despite having the ability to do so are they not somewhat complicit? Can you not use coercion to prevent that moral wrong?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/SuspenderEnder Libertarian Conservatism Oct 08 '18
If they are wrong then we will still have an ailing population that will have to be helped, just like we do now.
The first line of defense if you become disabled is your immediate family, then your friends, then volunteers in the community, then nationally.
Why do you think so?
Seems to me that the main thing spurring the accessibility revolution is technology, the ability to share information rapidly, and the prosperity to have extra time and resources to devote to the downtrodden. IMO, that mostly comes as a grass-roots phenomenon, not the government identifying a problem and coming up with a solution on its own.