Anarcho-capitalist solutions to the Handicapped/Disabled?

I have a question for anyone who cares to answer: In my exploration of Anarchism, I have found Libretarianism/Anarcho-capitalism/Volunteerism, to be the most logical and rational approaches to a "Stateless" society. BUT, I have yet to hear anyone address the issue of the handicapped/disabled/mentally ill population... Is there a Free-market solution to caring for those who TRULY can't care for themselves? To ensure that they don't "fall between the cracks" (so to speak)? Can anyone direct me to a book, or website, which would answer this question for me?

Charity. That is already a working solution for homeless / mentally ill populations. Free market charity would also be more selective in who recieves aid; i.e. no helping those too lazy to work.

edit: a free market society would have more jobs available so the homeless  popluations of people would decrease with increasing freedom. Right now government puts up massive barriers to starting your own buisness, meaning less jobs available which = more homeless. Even the most laissez faire governments restrict the economy.

It's important that we analyse how things work now before we consider how they are going to be.

I generally think of government welfare programs as insurance for our productivity. That is, we pay into it when we are productive, and receive when we are not. What is crucial is that all parties benefit If such a social establishment is voluntary. "But there is a reason," you might say, "that welfare cannot be voluntary, as the weakest members,( born disabled or such.) would be excluded."

This is, as you guessed, where charity comes in. It is a mistake to assume that there aren't any cracks in current systems.

I spent 18 months working as a voluntair, in Cambodia. There I got first hand experience with a chairity driven "safety net", and I was not impressed (!). Even though a myriad of international NGOs are constantly present people die by the thousands, or become disabled, by illnesses curable for less than a few dollars ... I know that Cambodia is not an Anarcho-capitalist society (though it has some similarities), but I can't see how chairity would work any better under such a regime.

And honnestly - who would choose to depend on chairity, if disabled?

You can't look at an country destroyed by the government and say charity isn't doing enough to help. Charities rely on contributions from productive members of society. If the government prohibits people from gaining wealth, they can't contribute as much to charities compared to a 1st world country. A free market economy will have the greatest wealth, meaning more people will be able to contribute to charities and help the less fortunate. 

Cambodia has endured a brutal history; we cannot blame voluntarism for its suffering.

Voluntarism is not to blame, for the suffering of poor people, but it is powerless when it comes to dealing with the scale of poverty of today. Without a redistribution of wealth the starving masses will have no way of becoming independent, of those who own their land, and though you may not be in favor of a redistribution at home I'm sure you can think of other societies that could benefit from it.

The whole world has endured a brutal history, Transcender, and there are few nations today who can pride themselves of a distribution of wealth based on a history of equallity. Most nations have experienced several shifts of regime, where the resourses have been redistributed among newly defined elites, and only seldom among the people who has lived there. To base a new society on the remains of historic unjustice will demand a continued regime of force, something that contradict anarchist filosophy in its roots.

If a person obtains wealth through theft or violence, any non-thief would be justified in taking the thieves money. A moral person has more of a claim to that money then the one who stole it. Granted, of course, that the thief can be proven as a thief.

It pussels me to see that people, who claim to oppose ruling regimes of today, does not hesitate to defend the unjustice they have produced in the past. 

where did I defend the ruling regimes of today?

You did'nt. (Edit: You claim to oppose them, don't you?)

It is unfair to say that voluntarism must clean up the mess of a functioning state.

But this is what you claim chairity will do, Transcender, when it replaces a NON-functioning state. Is it not?

I do oppose today's regimes, yes.

Charity will replace the state as far as helping the disabled, but it certainly wont happen overnight. There is a great deal of damage to undue from governments.

Exactly. If I burn down a village, charity is not likely to be able to keep up to the demand, government or not.

That's how it is.

Anarcho Capitalism?

It is an odd word, which is why I prefer 'Voluntarism/Voluntaryism".

This principle does not impede peaceful leftist systems, but forbids the violent, irrational kinds.

I'm confused.  It sounds like the discussion here is about managing capitalism, rather than replacing it.  I thought anarchism is about self organisation, rather than helping individuals become wealthy in order for them to help the poor; collectivism replacing exploitation.

Surely the aim for Leftists is to eradicate poverty and exploitation by establishing a system far superior to the one we have?  Or am I mistaken; are anarcho-capitalists not in that group?  If we're talking about just changing faces at the top then I doubt this notion would receive much support from the Left, but more from the Right?  It's the current system that causes poverty, changing faces at the helm won't change much at all, seemingly admitted by the notion of charity and poor people but correct me if I'm wrong.

I like the idea of a peaceful transformation of society but, given their track record so far, doubt very much that the people who currently own everything will allow this; why would they?  They've always used, and still do, brutal repression against even the most peaceful of movements.  A tiger won't let you remove it's claws one by one.

1. Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secFcon.html

--> No it is not. Coz Anarchism is not about abolishing the state alone. Anarchism is about abolishing oppressive structures upon human beings. Capitalistproduction with salary work and property of means of production is a system which oppresses people systematically. Therefore anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

Yellow/Black is not Anarchism, but modern Neoliberalism.

So if someone exchanges 500 gold coins for some land, and then pays a lumberjack to cuts down some trees on that land, and hires carpenters to build a home on his property, and then he sells the property with the new home on it for 1,000 gold coins (thus making a profit on his investment), who was exploited?