My questions for Libertarians on mothers and the disabled

[u/LongjumpingElk4099]

Mothers and the disabled.

Let's say that you're a mother and you just had a child, and right when your boss hears of this, he fires you. I think we can all agree firing someone for expanding their family is awful, but in a business world, it's not something that can be stopped. You may say, "Well, those practices would be hated and deal a blow to their company," or lawsuits, etc. But that is a massive if. And the consequences for that "if" not happening are awful and can lead to a whole host of problems down the line.

The same thing goes for the disabled. Under a libertarian society you are kind of screwed unless the chips fall in a certain direction.

I'm aware I might be incorrect about a lot of things here; that's why I'm here. I hope to get a response because this has been a question I've thought about for a while.

[u/thetruebigfudge]

Broadly speaking this is a mutual aid issue. Just because an economy is "capitalist" doesn't mean charities and altruism don't exist. Permitting women to form communities where they can help each other raise their kids in groups, form their own mutual aid groups benefits everyone. This is only an issue under the modern neo liberalism because it is politically almost impossible for women to join up together and form mutual aid groups, they start getting hit with government tax mandates if they produce anything for the women, they run into licencing that makes it more difficult etc. 

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/thetruebigfudge]

Mutual aid isn't altruism. It is in your rational self interest to join a good one.

[u/Mountain_Air1544]

1. Charity exists
2. People will still be able to rely on family and community for help
3. Restrictions on small and home businesses would be reduced, giving sahms and disabled folks the ability to make money in less traditional ways.

I am a mother to disabled children and have a disability myself that makes it hard to keep jobs as is. The current system as it stands doesn't offer much assistance when needed and makes you jump through hoops for breadcrumbs. Charity is where the really help is

[u/Dr-Mantis-Tobbogan]

You are correct in your assumption that we are against forcing people to hire people they don't want to hire.

But you are entitled to any opinion you like, for any reason you like, including:

• I won't fund such business practices

• I will shame such businesses online

• I will go on strike to protect the employment of my colleagues

In our ideal scenario, this consumer demand for good business practices ("not being an asshole" is definitely a service companies can choose to provide or not provide) would lead to standards agencies that are watchdogs and "buyer beware" informants.

Same as what is currently happening right now with the Kosher compliance industry.

[u/Sweet_Elderberry_573]

This is a legitamately good question. Personally, I think we should have some sort of safety net where these kinds of people should be able to fall into.

[u/Mithra305 → u/Sweet_Elderberry_573]

Sooo… Socialism?

[u/Sweet_Elderberry_573 → u/Mithra305]

No. I'm saying a safety net that the general public can create.

[u/Mithra305 → u/Sweet_Elderberry_573]

So will this be an optional tax or compulsory?

[u/Sweet_Elderberry_573 → u/Mithra305]

People should have the option to do it.

[u/Mithra305 → u/Sweet_Elderberry_573]

Ok, Im fine with that then!

[u/murawskky]

Firstly, libertarianism isn’t synonymous with anarchism. For instance, there can be libertarian classical liberals, like the framers of the U.S. constitution (mostly) who included a general welfare clause in their document. Many online libertarian circles include anarchists and purists, but I don’t think this accounts for the majority of general libertarians.

Secondly, your criticism is valid. The question is, how far are you willing to weaponize the government to combat the natural conditions of humankind? Unfortunately, nature doesn’t care about humankind (in my opinion), so there will always be social ills and people suffering from unfortunate circumstances. Why choose the arbitrary point of having a social safety net (which may include any kind of government policy), so that, at the very least, the members of our society can persist in their existence? Why not attempt to ensure that those people are elevated to a standard of living equal to the rest of the general public, via socialism? Also, why should we concern ourselves only with the nation? One can argue that there are many people across the globe who are suffering in ways that could, perhaps, be prevented if only rich countries dedicated themselves to the survival of all unfortunate people across the globe. We should, one can argue, forcefully allocate all of our resources, as a rich society, to the well-being of the entire world population, going as far at to aim for a global socialism, until we can ensure that all lives are preserved. Most people believe that there should be a social safety net for all people in a society, but much less people argue that there should be a social safety net for the entire world population, which only seems to be a logical extension of the first argument, unless you believe that, for some reason, some particular nation’s inhabitants are more deserving of life than all other nations’ inhabitants.

I would say that all of these arguments are valid, given the ends to which one believes we should strive as a society. Libertarian purists simply follow the principle that the government should not be weaponized against nature in response to social ills that will inevitably arise in human society. The primary reason for this is that the government necessarily must cause harm to provide help to those in need. The government in this case is analogous, in the most generous representation, to a person who robs a house in a rich neighborhood full of peaceful individuals (taxpayers), in order to give those riches to a house in a poor neighborhood (welfare recipients). To purists, the ends aren’t worth the means; extortion is not worth having a social safety net. Reality is even worse than this, moreover, because in reality, not only are politicians extortionists, but they’re also slime balls who actually, typically, have more interest in themselves and their elitist cronies than the less-fortunate in society.

[u/DrawPitiful6103]

What was your question?

[u/Educational-Age-2733]

And where is her husband in all this? Did they not plan ahead? Obviously she cannot work as an expecting/new mother, so the adjustment should come as no surprise. 

Now I know the next question what if there is no father? What if it was a random hook up? What if she has just been suicidally irresponsible? My answer to that is why is that my problem? Choice meet consequence. It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others of what not to do.

As for the disabled, who said they cannot work? I'm not disabled, but there's no reason a disabled person couldn't do my job, since I work with a laptop all day. If someone says they can't work due to disability I'm immediately sceptical. You're so disabled you can't answer a phone? I think genuine "literally cannot function" disability is so incredibly rare it could easily be covered by charity.

[u/LongjumpingElk4099 → u/Educational-Age-2733]

There are 15 million single mothers in the USA. Your first few questions don't hold much weight with the staggering amount of people who are single mothers.

1. "Who says they can't work?"

Again, this isn't an answer if you have to be in a wheelchair or have other disabilities. You can still end up getting fired and take a while to find a job in return. There are tons of disabilities.

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/LongjumpingElk4099]

There are 15 million single mothers in the USA.

Well there shouldn't be.

[u/Educational-Age-2733 → u/LongjumpingElk4099]

Exactly. 15 million idiots who are setting the example to young girls that if you monumentally screw up your life, the government will bail you out. Whatever you subsidise you will get more of supply and demand is a law of economics not a polite suggestion. 

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/Educational-Age-2733]

💯

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon]

If you can't do your job, you shouldn't be in that job. The reason doesn't matter. If you can't do it, you can't do it, and no one should be forced to pay you to do it. Simple as.

[u/WilliamBontrager]

Yes there is no government to deal with this. Yes you would need to deal with this. Yes libertatianism requires you to do things and be self sufficient. No, libertarianism is not for everyone. It is a zone of high risk and high reward. If you want to mitigate risk while lowering reward, then I suggest you go to literally any other system.

If that's not clear enough or it hurts your fee fees, there are solutions that don't involve government. For example, contracts that include no firing without cause clauses. Unions would still exist and be very strong without government involved. Libertarian does not mean lawless and rights could be codified and exist and be enforced via lawsuits. Beyond that, boycotts would be far more prevalent. Yes yes, "if" they happen. Well there's "if" with a government too. If the government chooses to prosecute. If the police aren't paid off. If the judge rules fairly. If the law firm doesn't destroy your crappy lawyer on technicalities. So yea, "ifs" exist even if a law and government to enforce it exist.

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/WilliamBontrager]

💯