PDA

View Full Version : How would a libertarian society deal with the American Disablites Act?




..PAUL4PRES..
04-21-2010, 09:41 AM
What do you think. I was talking with someone today and they brought this up and I had clue how to respond. Help is appreciated.......

UtahApocalypse
04-21-2010, 09:45 AM
If a business was not suitable for my father (in a wheelchair) I would not shop there. It is very likely my family and friends would also not visit the business. Enough people do the same and the business has to adapt, or will go out of business.

Its the same as EVERY other free market solution for business.

silus
04-21-2010, 10:15 AM
If a business was not suitable for my father (in a wheelchair) I would not shop there. It is very likely my family and friends would also not visit the business. Enough people do the same and the business has to adapt, or will go out of business.

Its the same as EVERY other free market solution for business.
Yes, and its the same with affirmative action. It makes pure business sense to create a perception of all-inclusiveness. Whether its who you employ or how an item is marketed.

If I ran a college I would gladly "sacrifice" test scores (to a degree) to create an environment of diverse backgrounds and experiences...

peacepotpaul
04-21-2010, 10:17 AM
If a business was not suitable for my father (in a wheelchair) I would not shop there. It is very likely my family and friends would also not visit the business. Enough people do the same and the business has to adapt, or will go out of business.

Its the same as EVERY other free market solution for business.

its easier said than done, sometimes you dont have many alternatives, and being that you're handicapped, it'll be all the harder to travel around. this is NOT saying that you have a right to any convenience, but I am skeptical that free market advocates would actually voluntarily reach out to disabled customers, especially if they're less than 1% of the population locally (and hopefully if they're only that, they have enough people around that'll care for them). They only thing that bothers me about ADA is the complete lack of respect for private property that mandates designated handicap parking regardless of its costs, convenience, likelihood of being used. (it's one thing to make your place accessible to handicapped, but another to save a whole parking spot for them 24/7)

silus
04-21-2010, 10:20 AM
I am skeptical that free market advocates would actually voluntarily reach out to disabled customers, especially if they're less than 1% of the population locally...
I see your point, but disabled people have families, friends, churches and communities. That 1% does not reflect the amount of people that can influence these businesses.

Krugerrand
04-21-2010, 10:22 AM
I'll share my example. Kohl's is the absolute most difficult place to shop with children. With the very young, their carts do not properly hold a car seat. With the older, the carts barely maneuver through the isles and position the kids to be able to grab anything and everything. I know many people who do not shop at Kohl's simply because it is too difficult.

That said ... that's their business prerogative.

Other people may specifically shop there because there are far fewer kids in the store than at other places.

Matt Collins
04-21-2010, 10:31 AM
Your answer is found here:
http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/categories_list.php



.

Danke
04-21-2010, 10:35 AM
Didn't Stossel have a good show with some disabled man fighting against the ADA?

pcosmar
04-21-2010, 10:47 AM
I have seen some nice wilderness areas destroyed by this . Ramps and elevators are not a wilderness trail.
I know of one business put out of business by it. Submarines are NOT wheelchair accessible.
Blind people CAN NOT race cars. or even drive them.

The concept is flawed, and the execution is worse.
:(

peacepotpaul
04-21-2010, 11:10 AM
I see your point, but disabled people have families, friends, churches and communities. That 1% does not reflect the amount of people that can influence these businesses.

alternatively, their friends and family can do their shopping and driving for them, such that they'd not need to boycott the businesses.

peacepotpaul
04-21-2010, 11:11 AM
I have seen some nice wilderness areas destroyed by this . Ramps and elevators are not a wilderness trail.
I know of one business put out of business by it. Submarines are NOT wheelchair accessible.
Blind people CAN NOT race cars. or even drive them.

The concept is flawed, and the execution is worse.
:(

it's the logical extension of the myth of equality, entitlement, and rights.
What do you expect when you force businesses to serve gays, blacks and junkies against their will?

peacepotpaul
04-21-2010, 11:12 AM
Didn't Stossel have a good show with some disabled man fighting against the ADA?

You gotta love these "one self hating minority defending the majority debunks your stereotype" arguments.

teamrican1
04-21-2010, 11:19 AM
What do you think. I was talking with someone today and they brought this up and I had clue how to respond. Help is appreciated.......

I would respond by asking your friend what right he has to point a gun at another human being and force them to spend money renovating their own property to suit your friend's personal tastes in terms of ease of access. At the end of the day, it all comes back to the non-aggression principal. Either you believe in individual freedom and voluntary trade or you believe in violence and theft. The ADA is a fundamentally immoral proposition and it should be opposed on those grounds. If I were building a business I'd probably design it so that there is at least one access point where people in wheel chairs or walkers could get in. But I have no right to force my design decision on somebody else.

amy31416
04-21-2010, 11:25 AM
I have seen some nice wilderness areas destroyed by this . Ramps and elevators are not a wilderness trail.
I know of one business put out of business by it. Submarines are NOT wheelchair accessible.
Blind people CAN NOT race cars. or even drive them.

The concept is flawed, and the execution is worse.
:(

Thankfully though, drive-through ATM's have braille keys. The government rocks.

Why don't we target the military? Shouldn't they be recruiting the handicapped and have special tanks just for them? Shouldn't they have Humvees with only hand-controls?

C'mon, if we have to provide jobs without any discrimination, why don't they?

MelissaWV
04-21-2010, 11:27 AM
People with disabilities are often able to do things largely for themselves if they're at the point that they'd like access to stores, etc.. There is no Canadian law mandating that grocery stores provide "assistants" to wander around and help blind people select products from their shelves, yet my boyfriend has no trouble finding someone to help him out. It's usually the same few employees, and if they are busy he waits patiently for them. In return, they have his business, the business of his family and friends, and it really isn't any skin off their nose. In fact, the employees like the "break" it gives them. Instead of stocking shelves, they're walking around with an interesting person who knows what he wants (down to the brand, package size, and price he's willing to pay).

Now, here's where it gets tricky. What if he weren't nice or interesting? What if he monopolized an employee's time for hours on end and generally made shopping a pain in the ass for a lot of other people, not to mention knocking over merchandise and being a jerk to people in general? If it were an ADA mandate that stores provide assistants to help blindguys shop, you couldn't really refuse him no matter how much of an ass he was being. In a far better world, the store could refuse him service on the basis of his behavior, and maintain order, or they could decide they can't spare employees and gamble that the business they lose will not be that big a deal.

As for ramps and the like... perhaps I'm being silly but most businesses should consider ramps anyhow. They certainly cut down on liability issues (people don't really trip and fall down ramps), and regular customers who might just have a sore knee or a temporary condition requiring crutches would appreciate it. On the flipside, ramps don't belong on a nature trail. There are simply some places one cannot go. I'm not going to require they install an elevator to the top of Mount Everest simply because I'm sure I cannot make the climb.

pcosmar
04-21-2010, 11:28 AM
Thankfully though, drive-through ATM's have braille keys. The government rocks.

Why don't we target the military? Shouldn't they be recruiting the handicapped and have special tanks just for them? Shouldn't they have Humvees with only hand-controls?

C'mon, if we have to provide jobs without any discrimination, why don't they?

:D
+1 for clarity of logic.

MelissaWV
04-21-2010, 11:30 AM
Thankfully though, drive-through ATM's have braille keys. The government rocks.

Why don't we target the military? Shouldn't they be recruiting the handicapped and have special tanks just for them? Shouldn't they have Humvees with only hand-controls?

C'mon, if we have to provide jobs without any discrimination, why don't they?

Amy I've made use of the Braille on drive-through ATMs :p I don't think it should be mandated, but it's a good idea and isn't really that costly. I've pulled forward so the blindguy in the driver's side back seat can use the ATM and doesn't have to let me know his PIN.

John E
04-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Out of curiosity, what harm is being done by the ADA at this time?

I think disability access (as in building access) should, as a rule, already be covered under building structure requirements and local government planing authorities should, again, as a service to its constituents, ensuring access as well.

Since the previous poster mentioned it -- I don't see why the physically handicapped couldn't service in the military (not sure if they do or not or in what capacity). They don't need to be on the field in a humvee or on a sub maning the torpedos but some of them are definitely smart people and can be working in many of the logistical or support divisions just like they do in the private sector.

amy31416
04-21-2010, 11:40 AM
Out of curiosity, what harm is being done by the ADA at this time?

I think disability access (as in building access) should, as a rule, already be covered under building structure requirements and local government planing authorities should, again, as a service to its constituents, ensuring access as well.

Since the previous poster mentioned it -- I don't see why the physically handicapped couldn't service in the military (not sure if they do or not or in what capacity). They don't need to be on the field in a humvee or on a sub maning the torpedos but some of them are definitely smart people and can be working in many of the logistical or support divisions just like they do in the private sector.

This is just one part of the ADA:


(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and institutional barriers;

So, according to that notion, a blind person should be able to fly a plane. A person with no legs should be able to go into battle. A 100 lb woman should be able to "man" a craft that needs a person who can lift or move more than 100 lbs.

I have no "right" to participate in all aspects of society, nor do I have the desire or ability--I do have the right to make the most of my life and understand some realistic limitations and I do not want the government to create an artificial environment to cater to me or anyone else.

MelissaWV
04-21-2010, 11:42 AM
Out of curiosity, what harm is being done by the ADA at this time?

I think disability access (as in building access) should, as a rule, already be covered under building structure requirements and local government planing authorities should, again, as a service to its constituents, ensuring access as well.

Since the previous poster mentioned it -- I don't see why the physically handicapped couldn't service in the military (not sure if they do or not or in what capacity). They don't need to be on the field in a humvee or on a sub maning the torpedos but some of them are definitely smart people and can be working in many of the logistical or support divisions just like they do in the private sector.

The ADA is not kind about the issue of retrofitting. If someone complains, you have to bring your building into compliance, and there's usually zero wiggle room. Things like the number of handicapped spaces are often entirely out of proportion with what the building is for or about. Installing things like ramps, handicap-access bathroom stalls, railings, Braille, and so on ... it's not free. It's an additional expense forced onto businesses, usually to make it possible for one or two patrons to use them.

Worse yet, the ADA makes it mandatory for employers to make "reasonable accomodations"... and sometimes this means entirely new equipment, large-print manuals, magnifying screens, special chairs, offering allergen-free snacks, etc. etc. etc..

The bottom line is that it's forced upon the business, rather than allowing the business to decide if it's worthwhile or not to do.

1000-points-of-fright
04-21-2010, 11:43 AM
Thankfully though, drive-through ATM's have braille keys. The government rocks.

I used to wonder about that but then I realized that it saves ATM makers money. Why waste money creating molds for drive-through ATM keys when they can just use the same keys that they make for their non-drive through ATMs.

You can complain about the government mandating that ATM keys have braille, but not about the drive-through thing.

amy31416
04-21-2010, 11:46 AM
I used to wonder about that but then I realized that it saves ATM makers money. Why waste money creating molds for drive-through ATM keys when they can just use the same keys that they make for their non-drive through ATMs.

You can complain about the government mandating that ATM keys have braille, but not about the drive-through thing.

It's a joke meant to point out some silliness, I understand the concept of mass production.

fj45lvr
04-21-2010, 12:30 PM
ADA is unconstitutional (where does the FED have this authority???).

KramerDSP
04-21-2010, 03:42 PM
I'm Deaf, and for the record, I believe that Deaf folks are more of a linguistic minority rather than disabled, although we certainly have a physical disability that does impede on our lives. Back in the day on Martha's Vineyard, virtually the entire town used a form of sign language to communicate with each other, even if the people involved weren't deaf. I thought that was interesting, as if everybody knew sign language, the barriers in place wouldn't be so prolific.

My biggest issue is with accessibility. YouTube, until very recently, was practically unaccessible because .01 percent of the videos are actually captioned. Even the mainstream media outlets that post videos of clips that aired on TV do not provide captioning for those same clips that were captioned on TV. As far as movie theatres go, the new releases for me happen when they come out on DVD because I can access them with subtitles. There ARE open-captioned movies in my area, but they tend to have showtimes in the morning, and very few people go to movie theatres in the morning. I like the use of Rear-View Captions, which are a device that allows me to read the captions without impeding on others who do not like the look of open captions on the screen.

As a Deaf Ron Paul supporter, I find this issue to be the most difficult when trying to convince my liberal and progressive friends about the ideas of libertarianism. People say that they would do it out of the kindness of their heart and that legislation isn't needed to ensure accessibility to online content (whether it be transcripts of podcasts or captioned videos), but I have seen for myself on this forum that very few of the forum members here that produce YouTube videos take the extra 3 minutes needed to upload a transcribed version of the dialogue in the video. YouTube does the rest.

There is a bill out now called H.R. 3101 and the Deaf community is really pushing for this. It is the Online Communications Accessibility act. I disagree with this act on principle, but to most deaf folks who are aggravated about "not being heard" regarding accessibility complaints, it's borderline sacrilegous to not support this bill. The argument I have used is that Google, on their own, because of a deaf employee of theirs, came up with an initiative to use voice recognition software for their YouTube videos. It's free and available to all to use. The problem is educating people that the technology is out there and is simple to use.

Even on this forum, I have posted tips on how folks can caption their videos. I've only really heard from 2 or 3 people who allowed me to work with them towards captioning their videos. Some have been awesome here, though, and are responsible for A L O T of the content on my website. I don't think we're asking for a lot. We're just asking for accessibility within the online world that is readily available to everybody else, and most folks are turning a deaf ear, so to speak. Forced legislation to ensure this ? It doesn't feel "right" to me, and I think it just creates more resentment from hearing people. At the same time, I don't exactly feel like people are going out of their way to caption their videos. It's really not that hard, and the captions can be toggled on/off, so for those who have a phobia about open captioning text on videos, they can be turned off.

KramerDSP
04-21-2010, 03:44 PM
By the way, here is the post I created a few weeks ago (http://deafronpaul.blogspot.com/2010/03/tutorial-on-automated-captions.html) regarding a tutorial on how to use YouTube's Automated Captioning Tool.