4 ms·

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

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.

orf 6y ago
Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensuring disabled access to a store will somehow end up funding ground-breaking disability research. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what we are doing now. Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources" are being somehow diverted away from disability research because private businesses need to accomodate disabled people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing that these unthinking groups (shall we call them companies?) would invest any of the money they would save by not ensuring equal access in anything related to disability research. When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a group level then focusing on the individual is not a great tactic. You can spend an hour individually explaining to every person in a country why smoking is bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.
neom 6y ago
I'm genuinely curious; is your position that there should be zero societal consideration for those less able than others?
- maxharris 6y ago
  No. Wherever the property in question is publicly owned, such as a courtroom or public road, reasonable accommodations must be made. The views I have shared apply only in the case of private property. On my view, if something is yours, it is yours alone to manage or dispose of so long as you do not interfere with the individual rights of others.

orf 6y ago

Ignoring the fact that it's not a tax that goes to the government, the flaw in your argument is assuming that the $1000 Subway now doesn't have to spend ensuring disabled access to a store will somehow end up funding ground-breaking disability research. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. You can attack a problem in multiple ways, it's not mutually exclusive. You can simultaneously fund research into curing disabilities _at the same time_ as ensuring people with disabilities have equal access. Which is what we are doing now. Trying to make the argument that hand-wavey "resources" are being somehow diverted away from disability research because private businesses need to accomodate disabled people sounds rather silly. Almost as silly as arguing that these unthinking groups (shall we call them companies?) would invest any of the money they would save by not ensuring equal access in anything related to disability research. When it comes to some forms of meaningful change at a group level then focusing on the individual is not a great tactic. You can spend an hour individually explaining to every person in a country why smoking is bad for them but that won't have nearly as much impact on smoking rates as banning cigarette adverts.

neom 6y ago

I'm genuinely curious; is your position that there should be zero societal consideration for those less able than others?

maxharris 6y ago
No. Wherever the property in question is publicly owned, such as a courtroom or public road, reasonable accommodations must be made. The views I have shared apply only in the case of private property. On my view, if something is yours, it is yours alone to manage or dispose of so long as you do not interfere with the individual rights of others.