3 ms·

> if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it. That doesn't tell us who should pay the co

by anamax 16y ago

> if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it. That doesn't tell us who should pay the costs. If "the people" think that something is a good idea, "the people" should pay for it.

jerf 16y ago
"The people" are paying for it. I am not deluded into thinking the ADA is free. They pay in generally raised prices, somewhat slower economic development, and the projects that are never born because they couldn't comply with the ADA, which this project nearly fell under. It is not anti-little-l-libertarian for a people to democratically agree to pay a little extra via governmental means to accomplish something the market isn't good at. It is anti-capital-L-Libertarian, but I'm not claiming that's what I am. The real problem is not that our society thinks the ADA is a good idea, the real problem is that for things that like we allow ourselves to be systematically deceived that the cost of the ADA is zero, and we don't have to think about the costs and benefits. This is a pervasive problem; neither liberalism nor conservatism includes explicit concepts of analyzing things for costs and benefits, which is why I consider neither philosophy directly applied actually suitable for ruling us. It's a very good idea to have underlying principles for your governing philosophy but they must always be filtered through a worldview that acknowledges our finiteness. (Also, I am a little-l-libertarian, so when I said I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general, it is not because I was not a wee bit tempted. It was because it wouldn't be fair or true.)
- anamax 16y ago
  > "The people" are paying for it. My claim is that they don't see that they're paying for it and they should. This isn't ADA-specific.

3 ms·

> if you want the entire market to serve a niche for social reasons you will need government intervention to do it. That doesn't tell us who should pay the co

by anamax 16y ago

jerf 16y ago
"The people" are paying for it. I am not deluded into thinking the ADA is free. They pay in generally raised prices, somewhat slower economic development, and the projects that are never born because they couldn't comply with the ADA, which this project nearly fell under. It is not anti-little-l-libertarian for a people to democratically agree to pay a little extra via governmental means to accomplish something the market isn't good at. It is anti-capital-L-Libertarian, but I'm not claiming that's what I am. The real problem is not that our society thinks the ADA is a good idea, the real problem is that for things that like we allow ourselves to be systematically deceived that the cost of the ADA is zero, and we don't have to think about the costs and benefits. This is a pervasive problem; neither liberalism nor conservatism includes explicit concepts of analyzing things for costs and benefits, which is why I consider neither philosophy directly applied actually suitable for ruling us. It's a very good idea to have underlying principles for your governing philosophy but they must always be filtered through a worldview that acknowledges our finiteness. (Also, I am a little-l-libertarian, so when I said I'm not pinning this on liberalism in general, it is not because I was not a wee bit tempted. It was because it wouldn't be fair or true.)
- anamax 16y ago
  > "The people" are paying for it. My claim is that they don't see that they're paying for it and they should. This isn't ADA-specific.