"Who will fund general infrastructure? Who will fund disability checks for parents with children that have mental disorders or sicknesses? Who will make the education system in an area where they are not as affluent financially to be functional?"

Who funds it today? Why does infrastructure go away without a monopolistic protection agency threatening people into obedience?

Who is responsible for educating children? Who brought those children into existence? I have 6 children and none of them have spent a single day within government funded schools. Why should I demand that society around me is responsible for MY offspring? That is MY responsibility. With liberty comes the burden of individually accountability.

Under no circumstances ever, would I apply for unemployment or disability checks from a coercive regime. I would only draw from a policy which I have voluntarily invested into, such as a private insurance agreement collaborative that guarantees such coverages. Any such collaborative that is based upon force or coercion, is invalid and amounts to nothing more than theft, and is therefore unfit to be used according to my values.

You might ask - What if I cannot afford any such collaborative policy? Then hopefully my own family or friends may be able to assist in my time of need, just as I would for them in their time of need (according to whatever ability I might have). But I could not rightfully impose that upon them as some sort of moral obligation or duty. And I would NEVER call upon the government mafia to draw weapons and threaten or compel anybody else to provide their resources to me. Most people who do draw from government redistribution schemes would also rarely endorse such harsh methods as calling on them to draw weapons etc... But the practical fact of the matter is the same even though they hide behind the façade of being an "innocent citizen."

My needs are MY responsibility. Providing for my children is part of that because I brought them into the world. Anything beyond that is based upon individual prerogative and consent.

I personally believe that being charitable and compassionate are valuable human traits. And I encourage them. But I make no such claim of valuable traits somehow being misconstrued as intrinsic human "rights" or obligations from one stranger to another just because we are of the same species.

"I do believe the power of that I understand that some people need help based on their life circumstance."

My response to this would be - Then help those who you choose to help. Who is stopping you? The difference between the principles found within liberty vs. statism, is that one is voluntary, and the other is coercive. One recognizes consent, and the other exists upon force. There is no benevolence nor virtue within force.

How much more can you personally "help" people in need if you were not stolen from in the first place? That is, if you were not extorted via coercive taxation, and then you use a portion of your resources to help those in need which you are speaking of.

"Or is it the general consensus that in a truly free world its your problem and I don't have to help?"

This is a distorted view. The proper view is that gangsters, who call themselves government, are not righteous for stealing from one group in order to give to another. They do not own the resources they are redistributing.

If you were personally in need, would you prefer that people who genuinely have compassion for your need, are the ones who "help?" Or would you prefer that countless thousands of others are plundered and threatened in order to provide what YOU need?

The fundamental issue with redistribution is that those who promote it have some sort of altruistic outlook as it relates to OTHER PEOPLES PROPERTY. Do YOU have a rightful claim to MY resources? Do YOU have a rightful claim to the product of MY labor?

If the answer is no, then what basis would you or anybody else have to claim any legitimacy of how me or my resources are up for grabs without my consent? The answer is that there is no such legitimacy to any such claims.

The best you can do is to be individually compassionate toward others with whatever means you have available, in order to contribute VOLUNTARILY (i.e. without the threat of force or coercion) toward those needs.

The State is just a parasite, not a charity. Working people will take care of their relatives who are unable to provide for themselves (as they always have) If the economy offers abundant and cheap goods and services, poverty will be all the easier to bear for the working people. Including for those without family or alternative, who will be in the minority, charity already exists today and will surely be more efficient in the future when needed.

The solution to these things will manifest from technological efficiency. Not the church or local communitarians pooling their resources in the absence of any welfare state. That's comical. If technology reaches incredible efficiency (which we're trending towards), then the welfare state can carry marginal cost, that is, a cost that doesn't create an incentive structure for anyone to fight it.

Think of fusion energy reducing base load cost and augmenting availability, and all the previously un-economical things that suddenly are. Or simple mRNA treatments for cancer, dementia. CRISPr that edits genes to produce cures. Carebots. Nanobots. Robotics. The yield producing capacity of 3 dimensional printing. Artificial organs better than our own. Vertical farming. Seed genetics. Solid state lithium. Eventually quantum everything.

The real question isn't who funds disability checks, but who funds the technologies that raise the floor while opening the trapdoor on cost at scale. That capex will be spent by the same usual suspects it always was, but bitcoin is an efficiency technology itself, and will make fiat more efficient, politics more honest with a check on their prestige, energy less wasteful, time preferences longer, and investment less reckless. This will probably start with bitcoin's Atlas Blocks.

социальный смарт контракт... люди будут помогать друг другу... сейчас достаточно накопить несколько монет биткоина что б обеспечить несколько лет перестройки на новые рельсы... подумай кто сейчас пытается сохранить? какое государство не думает о жителях? всегда будут знать что есть 125000 человек для поддержки... Мы же будем их поддерживать? а знаешь кто это??? это сейчас те кто у власти... им по 45-55-65 лет... и через время они будут с милионами но без биткоина... им что делать??? ты готов им платить после того что они сделали???