If someone can't take care of themselves, someone else will have to watch over them. I wouldn't go so far as to call these individuals as freeloaders or moochers, but the question of the sanctity of life versus the quality of life arises. There is no quality in living your life off of someone else--that goes without saying. But with things like euthanasia, where an individual voluntarily calls upon a doctor to end their life in exchange for money, would Rand consider this moral? I know right now if I'm incapable of becoming something great, I wouldn't want to live a life of obscurity. I want to be as independent as possible. I want to be able to put my mind to the best possible use. What would she think?
In this day and age the disabled can pay their way through sheltered workshops - a local one does car detailing and gardening services, for instance. The disabled wouldn't exactly be living middle-class lifestyles in most cases, but they'd still produce more than they consume. It takes a very high degree of disability not to be able to do this. In such a case, what they can do then is prevail upon others for charity, and there'd be so few of such extremely disabled people that the ability to find sufficient charity would be a non-issue.
In point of morality, the rest of us are not morally obliged to provide support of any kind - we don't 'have' to do anything. Of course, I do recognise that you're only speaking of "have" in terms of practical causal requirements so as to stave off starvation. In point of fact, there'd be plenty of charity for the truly needy under laissez-faire, and what the disabled would have to do is ask. Unless you want to challenge the morality, that's all there is to be said.
answered Dec 27 '11 at 03:26