I'm not making moral claims, nor am I saying what "should" be. I'm just pointing out an obvious feedback loop, which however does put the onus on the reader to figure out for themselves how much freedom they want to allow for everyone (again, not just themselves).
Seems to me you're trying to read what I said as a call for some "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idea. Which is isn't, if you pay attention to the words I used.
Nope, I spoke of collective freedom and ability. Read the statement again with some thought.
I didn't say "the more freedom you want for yourself, the more you must take care of yourself". I spoke of freedom any one person wants to have for everyone, meaning themselves and others (including people with disabilities OR people they don't like). And I said you'd also need ableness in proportion to the level of freedom you want. If you aren't able and can't take care of yourself, it would be in your best interest to support systems that enable getting you the kind of support you need (though you don't have to, if you want to grant everyone the freedom to refuse to support you). And if one is so disabled that they can't do anything for themselves, they probably aren't too concerned about abstract societal freedoms to begin with.
No, I'm going by the real definitions of words. Charity by definition is something done in informal basis (and as such, it's unreliable). It's not welfare system - which Keller wanted (reliable egalitarianism). Keller herself was vocally against relying on charity as the sole system of support for the needy. She argued that as long as the disabled and the poor relied on the "generosity" of individuals, they remained subjects rather than citizens.
Where did I ever say that doing everything by yourself is better somehow? I pointed out specifically that she needed assistance. She didn't need someone to do everything for her, she needed someone to enable her to do as much as she could for herself, and that's also what kind of policies she fought for.
She needed tools and accommodations, not charity. She fought for systems that allowed her to participate, not for others to do things for her. That’s the difference between dependency and interdependence with autonomy. She fought for the level of the freedom she wanted for everyone as much as she was able.
"I’m free as hell. I choose to use my freedom to help my children, my wife, and my community. So no, they and I don’t need to be more capable of taking care of ourselves. "
Yeah, as I said, this is the level of freedom you want for everyone. People who freely associate with each other take care of each other.
I never said anything about the experience of burden. You're just making that assumption and skipping over the criteria of "freedom for EVERYONE". Not just the individual.
The hyper-individualist (who might see caring for others as burdensome) has to accept that EVERYONE has the same level of freedom as them - meaning if they allow everyone the same level of freedom as themselves, they must accept the possibility that nobody catches them as they fall (and that they may have to actively defend themselves against other people exercising their freedom the way they want) and thus, they must be willing and able to care for themselves in exact proportion to how much they want freedom for EVERYONE. This does include having the ABILITY to persuade other people to care for you the way you need (be it out of genuine love for one's family or by oppressive force - but again, everyone else has the same freedom).
On the other hand, if you want to be very collectivist and put emphasis on mutual care and group cohesion, you're going to have to accept that amount of limitations on EVERYONE's freedoms. Meaning you have responsibility to follow the social norms and rules of a collective. Laws, regulations, taxes. You're going to have to be subject to some kind of authority that keeps cohesion in place BUT that authority on the other hand does have the responsibility to provide care, services, general quality of life.
Where you land here is on nobody but you to figure out.
Also sure, people can demand freedom for themselves and oppression for others but seeing as absolute freedom is the natural state of humans prior to humans themselves conceiving limitations on it, their demands will always be subject to challenge. As in, they can demand it, but there is no non-human principle that grants them more freedom than others. Whatever rules they can break, so can anyone else.