5 ms·

> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which i

by orf 6y ago

> When you compel others to do something, whatever it is that you've coerced them into doing cannot be a noble act > No good ultimately comes from that which is not freely chosen. > You get feedback about how your acts are impacting his life, which helps you be a better friend. > This ends up hurting more people than you help. What an absolutely mind numblingly self centered and brain-dead take. It's got nothing to do with the "noble act" or other such nonsense. They are there so that people with disabilities don't end up living a second class existence, locked out of large parts of modern life, because it is not economically sensible to add disabled access to your building or service for the very small percentage of potential customers who need it.

valuearb 6y ago
I have no problem with the government paying for ADA accommodations, and all of us sharing in the tax burden for them. Why should their costs be forced on a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways?
- teraflop 6y ago
  If some business models have a harder time providing equal accommodations to disabled people than others, why is it "unequal" for those business models to pay a correspondingly larger cost? Seems like a pretty reasonable negative incentive to me.
- shagie 6y ago
  This is how it works for other companies... though not the government paying for ADA. Taxi companies have vehicles equipped for wheelchairs and other disabilities. They tend to be unprofitable to operate - but they have them. The reduction or loss of a profit on those fares is made up for by the taxi company, as a whole, subsidizing it from the increased prices for the rest of the fares. It isn't necessary for this to be a government thing. It is simply "the company needs to increase the cost of its service so that what it offers is accessible to everyone." As this applies to everyone in the sector the same (taxis, uber, Lyft, etc...) it isn't impacting a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways. This applies to restaurants, retail businesses, etc...
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    It does benefits bigger organizations that have more of an ability to absorb higher costs than small businesses and startups, just like any other regulatory burden.
maxharris 6y ago
Why do you assume that the problem of a second-class existence for some is avoidable given the current state of the art in science, technology and medicine? You can put wheelchair ramps on every building and have zero impact on the number of people that can walk that will date someone in a wheelchair, or the number of non-hearing-impaired people that will even be friends with a deaf person. This is because people often meet and relate to one another through their experiences and shared interests. Frankly, the only way those situations can change is through technology. As we come up with ways of repairing spinal cord injuries, restoring hearing and sight, etc., many people will have ways of breaking through the very real barriers I'm speaking of here. Wouldn't it be better to spend more of the money that goes into ramps and the like on research instead? If people are left free to decide what to do with their own resources, I argue that ultimately more resources will go into advancing science and technology, with the ultimate effect of creating a society where fewer people suffer a second-class existence. Take the existence of Neuralink as a practical example of this: it's a private company whose first users will be paraplegic people, and people suffering from strokes and Parkinson's disease.
- orf 6y ago
  You're conflating a number of different points and mixing it together with a dash of futurism rubbish. Handicapped people need access to goods and services right now. Services like banks, restaurants, public buildings. Laws and regulations that ensure they have access to those goods and services is not holding back "science and technology". In some vague future where we've cured all disabilities then sure, I agree these laws are probably not needed anymore. However, until then...
  - maxharris 6y ago
    I don't think you understand the impact that government controls have on the development of science and technology. (Just look at the decades of failure in the public space program and compare it against the progress made by private companies in the last decade!) Nor are you acknowledging the fact that resources are finite for any a single instant in time. Every dollar you take from someone in taxes is a dollar they are not free to put toward their own values. Even more importantly, they are no longer free to guide that money with the information they uniquely have. If you want meaningful change, you have to think about this at an individual level. After all, it is individuals who think, make scientific discoveries, and make business decisions. Groups don't think.

by orf 6y ago

valuearb 6y ago

I have no problem with the government paying for ADA accommodations, and all of us sharing in the tax burden for them. Why should their costs be forced on a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways?

teraflop 6y ago
If some business models have a harder time providing equal accommodations to disabled people than others, why is it "unequal" for those business models to pay a correspondingly larger cost? Seems like a pretty reasonable negative incentive to me.
shagie 6y ago
This is how it works for other companies... though not the government paying for ADA. Taxi companies have vehicles equipped for wheelchairs and other disabilities. They tend to be unprofitable to operate - but they have them. The reduction or loss of a profit on those fares is made up for by the taxi company, as a whole, subsidizing it from the increased prices for the rest of the fares. It isn't necessary for this to be a government thing. It is simply "the company needs to increase the cost of its service so that what it offers is accessible to everyone." As this applies to everyone in the sector the same (taxis, uber, Lyft, etc...) it isn't impacting a narrow group of businesses in unequal ways. This applies to restaurants, retail businesses, etc...
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  It does benefits bigger organizations that have more of an ability to absorb higher costs than small businesses and startups, just like any other regulatory burden.

maxharris 6y ago

Why do you assume that the problem of a second-class existence for some is avoidable given the current state of the art in science, technology and medicine? You can put wheelchair ramps on every building and have zero impact on the number of people that can walk that will date someone in a wheelchair, or the number of non-hearing-impaired people that will even be friends with a deaf person. This is because people often meet and relate to one another through their experiences and shared interests. Frankly, the only way those situations can change is through technology. As we come up with ways of repairing spinal cord injuries, restoring hearing and sight, etc., many people will have ways of breaking through the very real barriers I'm speaking of here. Wouldn't it be better to spend more of the money that goes into ramps and the like on research instead? If people are left free to decide what to do with their own resources, I argue that ultimately more resources will go into advancing science and technology, with the ultimate effect of creating a society where fewer people suffer a second-class existence. Take the existence of Neuralink as a practical example of this: it's a private company whose first users will be paraplegic people, and people suffering from strokes and Parkinson's disease.

orf 6y ago
You're conflating a number of different points and mixing it together with a dash of futurism rubbish. Handicapped people need access to goods and services right now. Services like banks, restaurants, public buildings. Laws and regulations that ensure they have access to those goods and services is not holding back "science and technology". In some vague future where we've cured all disabilities then sure, I agree these laws are probably not needed anymore. However, until then...
- maxharris 6y ago
  I don't think you understand the impact that government controls have on the development of science and technology. (Just look at the decades of failure in the public space program and compare it against the progress made by private companies in the last decade!) Nor are you acknowledging the fact that resources are finite for any a single instant in time. Every dollar you take from someone in taxes is a dollar they are not free to put toward their own values. Even more importantly, they are no longer free to guide that money with the information they uniquely have. If you want meaningful change, you have to think about this at an individual level. After all, it is individuals who think, make scientific discoveries, and make business decisions. Groups don't think.