Alexander

I have already answered similar questions at least twice: at the very beginning of the channel’s existence, and considerably later. The general sense of the answers came down to two considerations. First, in the absence of the state, people will have more money and room for maneuver to engage in charity. Second, the most important skill for those who need the care of others and other resources is the ability to be grateful. It is difficult to convince oneself to take care of a misanthrope who is certain that the whole world owes them, but it is very easy to do so for a sweetheart who skillfully strokes your ego in return.

There are, of course, various cringeworthy answers about the fate of the disabled under ancap, for example, Svetov’s well-known remark about the freak show, which the world was deprived of when the state banned it. Naturally, in this case, it is not so much about the state as it is about society. The mass solvent demand to go and laugh at freaks, no matter how funny they grimaced, disappeared. It became shameful, just as many are ashamed to go to a circus with trained animals. Morals changed; the old business model became unprofitable. Now, the socially vulnerable do not need to try and evoke disgust-filled pity or laughter to get money. It is much easier to evoke tenderness, respect, or some other form of empathy.

Thus, all else being equal, I would buy a product on the street from a child or a disabled person, then simply from the elderly, and only after them from those who look most capable of working. The persistence of a person who has a handicap but tries to compete on equal terms with others now evokes respect rather than irritation.

But fine, socially vulnerable groups will gain something from the abolition of the state, but surely they will lose something too? Yes.

Most likely, the urban environment under ancap will be less inclusive than under a state in a society with a comparable level of wealth—because in the market, for example, there will likely not be significant demand for equipping sidewalks with tactile paving. It is the state that can pour insane amounts of money into asphalt for the hypothetical needs of extremely small groups, neglecting the interests of far more numerous and solvent communities (why serve those who have money when you can rob them under the pretext of providing for the disabled). On the other hand, I fully admit that under ancap, the appearance of quarters specifically designed for the needs of people with limited mobility may prove justified: this is cheaper than equipping an entire city. I would, for instance, gladly rent housing in such a quarter during the period of caring for a small child, and then move to a more ordinary setting.

Also, most likely, under ancap, socially vulnerable groups will not be able to rely on some guaranteed income—but this, as I have already noted, should be compensated by the greater ease of earning. This compensation may prove insufficient. But in the same way, one can claim that a completely healthy but incompetent worker will not succeed in a free market—whereas in a social state, he would feel quite fine on benefits. From here, it is not far to reflections on universal basic income. Starting from a certain sufficiently high level of wealth in society, the idea of indiscriminately giving everyone a minimum sufficient for living, and thereby shielding oneself from the irritating petty crime caused by poverty, begins to seem quite sound and will certainly find its voluntary admirers.