4 ms·

> I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. W

> I am not sure how to explain this POV. I think it's good for society as a whole and good for people, and that's what I'm looking for in laws and government. What do you look for in laws? In laws and in government I look for measures to maximize my liberty. I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. I am ultimately responsible for my happiness. I don't think governments can make people happy and I don't think they should try > I believe, similarly, that landlords should be obligated to rent out properties that they thought they wanted to rent out and then changed their minds on, just because it'd be inconvenient for the renter, for some generous period in which the renter can look for new housing. I don't believe that a landlord should be legally able to say "Good morning, I'm tired of renting, move out." If landlords are in the business of doing things like this, I would like to start a company that doesn't treat it's customers like garbage and take money out of the pockets of such landlords

jhanschoo 8y ago
I'm not interested in arguing primarily in the discussion at hand, but you seem to have a position based in some philosophical/ideological claims that I think may hold up to scrutiny very well. > I don't think governments can make people happy. The government does positive actions (i.e. not merely preventing bad actors from doing bad stuff) for maintaining national parks. I chose this example because the happiness of enjoying a national park is very direct, and the government's positive actions in maintaining these parks (e.g. controlling burns) is very uncontroversial. So it turns out that the government can make people happy. > I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. Does the government have a duty to defend its citizens from natural causes and from itself? If you agree with this, the there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for, with the difference in productivity compensated by the government.
- brennebeck 8y ago
  >[...]there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for[...] Doesn’t the ADA(A) cover this? Doesn’t it specifically ensure that disability can’t be used for qualification? >[...]with the difference in productivity compensated by the government. Wouldn’t that undermine the fact that people with disabilities shouldn’t be evaluated based on their disability and ‘reasonable’ accommodations should be made?
  - jhanschoo 8y ago
    > Doesn’t the ADA(A) cover this? Doesn’t it specifically ensure that disability can’t be used for qualification? What I'm saying is one step further, and more unreasonable: that if the disability disqualifies the person, then the government should compensate them for the marginal loss in wages that they could have earned from that job if they were not disabled (against a lower-paying job that they are still qualified for). The ADA only prevents discrimination by employers against disabled people where the disability does not disqualify them from the job. > Wouldn’t that undermine the fact that people with disabilities shouldn’t be evaluated based on their disability and ‘reasonable’ accommodations should be made? This is a good general rule of thumb for the everyday treatment of the disabled, in terms of integrating with society. But I think this is insufficient to bring justice to the disabled. But you have a point and I guess the following may be a better way: with respect to disabilities arising from government service, there is a point in time when the government's actions have caused an individual to be disabled. Thus the disabled individual may be compensated for the amortized future loss in wages at one go; thereafter the law should not actively discriminate (positively/negatively) the disabled based on their disability. If a society should then decide to be more magnanimous, this may be done, too, to the naturally disabled, once they become of age. (not while they are too young, or this would create a perverse incentive)

jhanschoo 8y ago

I'm not interested in arguing primarily in the discussion at hand, but you seem to have a position based in some philosophical/ideological claims that I think may hold up to scrutiny very well. > I don't think governments can make people happy. The government does positive actions (i.e. not merely preventing bad actors from doing bad stuff) for maintaining national parks. I chose this example because the happiness of enjoying a national park is very direct, and the government's positive actions in maintaining these parks (e.g. controlling burns) is very uncontroversial. So it turns out that the government can make people happy. > I think the purpose of government is to defend me from you and you from me. Does the government have a duty to defend its citizens from natural causes and from itself? If you agree with this, the there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for, with the difference in productivity compensated by the government.

brennebeck 8y ago
>[...]there should be some guarantee by the government that the disabled veteran should be no less able to qualify for a job that someone not disabled can qualify for[...] Doesn’t the ADA(A) cover this? Doesn’t it specifically ensure that disability can’t be used for qualification? >[...]with the difference in productivity compensated by the government. Wouldn’t that undermine the fact that people with disabilities shouldn’t be evaluated based on their disability and ‘reasonable’ accommodations should be made?
- jhanschoo 8y ago
  > Doesn’t the ADA(A) cover this? Doesn’t it specifically ensure that disability can’t be used for qualification? What I'm saying is one step further, and more unreasonable: that if the disability disqualifies the person, then the government should compensate them for the marginal loss in wages that they could have earned from that job if they were not disabled (against a lower-paying job that they are still qualified for). The ADA only prevents discrimination by employers against disabled people where the disability does not disqualify them from the job. > Wouldn’t that undermine the fact that people with disabilities shouldn’t be evaluated based on their disability and ‘reasonable’ accommodations should be made? This is a good general rule of thumb for the everyday treatment of the disabled, in terms of integrating with society. But I think this is insufficient to bring justice to the disabled. But you have a point and I guess the following may be a better way: with respect to disabilities arising from government service, there is a point in time when the government's actions have caused an individual to be disabled. Thus the disabled individual may be compensated for the amortized future loss in wages at one go; thereafter the law should not actively discriminate (positively/negatively) the disabled based on their disability. If a society should then decide to be more magnanimous, this may be done, too, to the naturally disabled, once they become of age. (not while they are too young, or this would create a perverse incentive)