This post was partially inspired by JDR's latest blog entry and my husband. You should definitely check out JDR's blog, it is very insightful and an interesting read.
On a totally unrelated note, if you want to see some eye candy, check out Casper's blog. Woo Hoo!!! Congrats on your first pro fight Casper!!!!
My husband a few days ago was watching youtube and watching clips of Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t. The topic at hand was the American With Disabilities Act. I should preface this by saying my husband although socially liberal is also fiscally conservative, his republican friends are trying to convince him he is a libertarian as that is more socially acceptable than being a democrat, and as per usual, I digress.
His argument was why should any business or public place be forced to accommodate disabled people? Why should they be forced to hire and school people, as business owners and others should choose to do what they please. I wholeheartedly disagree with this mindset.
I think that people if left up to their own devices would not take care of those less fortunate, would not accommodate the disabled, and wouldn't want diversity or inclusiveness, unless it appealed to their particular group. People for the most part are selfish, this could be an American thing, but I think all people are that way. History proves this over and over. Proposition 8 proved this. Black people although people who have been historically oppressed, many voted to support a ban on gay marriage. Not comparing the struggles, but from one oppressed group to another, it should be something that we should consider before wanting to take the civil rights of others. On the flip side we have the members of the gay community offended by this and going to the extreme of blaming blacks for the passing of Proposition 8, telling people they did blacks "a favor" by voting for Obama, as well as some saying if a ban of Affirmative Action ever comes up, they plan to vote against Affirmative Action, as if it is solely a "black thing", not considering the other minorities and white women who would be affected by this as well. That and the fact many gay people tend to be forgetting that there are many people who are not only gay, but black as well, but I digress, again.
I feel the government has to intervene because of this. I know that sounds like big brother, but oh well, call me a socialist, but if left to our own devices slavery and segregation would have lasted a lot longer, disabled people would continue to be housed in institutions and treated as cast offs of society, people would have their kids drop out of school in the fourth grade, people would die of starvation, the homeless populations would increase, and women would still be considered in the legal sense as property. We needed government intervention to insure these things wouldn't happen. People for the most part only empathize and show compassion for those like themselves, they for the most part aren't capable or don't care to empathize with those not like them.
Look at the current economic crisis. CEOs and upper management of companies had lots of freedom and could have done great things aside from increase their salaries, instead they ran their own companies into the ground, while giving themselves raises, without regards to the fiscal impact it would have on their own companies, the jobs of their employees, or to the service of their customers. Most people with power and money don't care about people who don't have power and money. Most people who are white don't want to acknowledge or care about others who aren't white and can't fully understand the concept of discrimination outside of slavery and segregation. Most men don't care about the advancement of women. Most people don't care about the disabled, unless they are disabled or know people who are disabled. That is the way of the world.
My husband tends to think I have no faith in people and that I assume the worse. I guess he is right, but history tends to prove my view of the world versus the "give people the benefit of the doubt" view.
13 comments:
"There Is No Humanity Only Self Interest"
This is very true. I thought of myself as a mild exception, until I realized that the only reason I was helping people was because at the end of the day it made my ego feel good. Can there be a truly selfless act? Is that possible? Don't we get something back, even piece of mind or a promise of hope or afterlife, by doing something for nothing in return? Just because you give away a physical good does it not mean your not getting back a mental good or service? Because something has no physical value, does it not mean it has no value? Life...
Hale vs Henkel sited at 201 U.S. 43 is the supreme court case that determined this. Private business is not subject to affirmative action where public business (AKA corporations) and franchise is. Corporations are a creature of the state according to this decision, and thus can be regulated by the state.
Ma and Pa can hire and fire anyone they want, buy, sell or refuse to buy or sell to or from anyone they want, without explanation and without legal repercussion. Public business would have class action lawsuits stacked to the moon if they did that.
Most people don't know the law so it doesn't really matter anyway. People would just rather argue about it.
Ma and Pa can hire and fire anyone they want, buy, sell or refuse to buy or sell to or from anyone they want, without explanation and without legal repercussion. Public business would have class action lawsuits stacked to the moon if they did that.
If you accept government moneys be it in the form of contracts, loans, or corporate welfare you should be regulated by the state. Ma and Pa also has to deal with city ordinances about how their building should look, where it should be located, and some cities do cite that companies should be wheelchair accessible. Unless you have a home based business it is impossible to get government out of your life, and even then you go to the IRS and taxes, and government pops up once again.
Most Ma and Pa businesses fail, so they don't have a huge impact on the overall good of the people. We have let corporations get too big and the greed that has allowed them to swallow up other companies is why we are in the mess we are in now.
It kills me how the CEOs of automakers came to Washington to beg for money on corporate jets, and then get upset because folks pointed it out. When I used to do business travel, I guess my safety wasn't a concern because I was on the lower levels, but because a person is a CEO, riding commercial seems to be a big risk. It is kind of pathetic and sad how we place importance on people who have failed us and see no hypocrisy in how we treat those of lesser means and stations in life.
This is very true. I thought of myself as a mild exception, until I realized that the only reason I was helping people was because at the end of the day it made my ego feel good. Can there be a truly selfless act? Is that possible?
JDR:
Exactly there is no selfless act, even if you do take the pay cut, even if you do things for the better of people, it is because you want to feel better about yourself.
If a Ma and Pa want to set up their private business within certain zones then they usually have to sign a form of contract to operate within that zone which is why they are required to put up handicap ramps etc. If the Ma and Pa get a business license then again they fall withing state regulation.
Private business without any licensing which deals by contract (your right to contract is unlimited and cannot be infringed by government or its agents) are unaffected. Private business only has to pay income tax IF they have income. Increase in property is uninfected.
I know this all seems like tit for tat, however the law is set up in semantics. Wording something one way makes the action is illegal, wording it another way and its all good.
Private business that only deals in gold or silver, who word it specifically as increase in property are tax free. I forget the case law which supports that. If you want I can look it up but it will take some time.
In short if you don't want to pay income tax, stop having income.
A smarter man than myself once told me "A truly free person can go from birth to death without signing their name once"
I think in a general sense, you are right. If you mean people as a whole in America, you are certainly right. Of course there are individuals who care about causes other than their own... but often not nearly as passionately as those who are directly affected. I think the ADA is a great thing, but a small business owner who has to install a ramp is gonna complain. Why? Because now the law negatively affects them. (Or that's how they view it.)
Our capitalist economy is BASED on selfishness. You're supposed to compete, do better than the other guy, shut him down if you can, and get as much money as you can. I don't understand why people think a nation of people who believes this is the best way to act will naturally take care of the poor, fix health care, etc. People get rich because they know how to keep their money. Sure, some support good causes, but usually it's a cause that directly affects their own interests, or it buys them a better image. There's no rich guy out there who's going to suddenly decide that my husband and I should to purchase health care for my husband and I. In a capitalist country where you fight to get ahead, it's obvious that we just don't want it and haven't earned the right.
For those who do care about causes other than their own - sure it may make their ego feel good... but that doesn't make it bad. Doing good for others will always lead to good for everyone. Let's not complain about that. I'm not going to STOP corporations who fund charities. I just wish we could figure out how to want to help others with basic things like equal protection under the law, and the opportunity for health and shelter.
I'd disagree with the idea that people don't care, but they, and I, won't pay for someone else without some sort of inducement. It can be government requirement, a feeling of responsibility, or to make themselves feel better.
We prioritize our interests, then family, then friends, then strangers. It's not particularly nice, but it's certainly human...
But disability access is a bad example of this, to my mind, because I could become disabled. I walk out the door, get hit by a car and suddenly I need that ramp I walk briskly by every morning. Making sure it exists is a sensible precaution, like looking both ways before I cross the street.
I'm a little biased on the subject. I have a son with some issues. I believe that it is his right to have a public school education. The school system should make provisions for him and we shouldn't have to shell out thousands of dollars for him to go to private school because the public school system doesn't want to deal with him. I do agree that people can hire and fire at will, but I guess you have to educate yourself on what your rights are.
Just posting this to get the bookmark, I forgot to click the "email follow-up comments" box. This way I don't have to keep checking for updates. yay! ;)
To the notion that gays will pass affirmative action bans in retaliation for Prop 8 passing, well, they're either too late or already voted for such bans which makes passing prop 8 retaliation for passing prop 209... California's affirmative action ban, passed in the late 90s.
Welcome Amber to my blog. A friend of brohammas is an internet friend of mine (I don't know him outside of the blogosphere)
Our capitalist economy is BASED on selfishness. You're supposed to compete, do better than the other guy, shut him down if you can, and get as much money as you can. I don't understand why people think a nation of people who believes this is the best way to act will naturally take care of the poor, fix health care, etc.
Exactly, our mentality is to be cut throat, but then people want to assume that we will flip the coin and go Mother Teresa to ensure the greater good of the people.
In a capitalist country where you fight to get ahead, it's obvious that we just don't want it and haven't earned the right.
That is the mentality that we really need to address. There is an assumption that people are poor because they want to be poor, that hard work always leads to success, and obviously this isn't the case. The working poor is a cold hard fact of life in America.
For those who do care about causes other than their own - sure it may make their ego feel good... but that doesn't make it bad. Doing good for others will always lead to good for everyone. Let's not complain about that
I guess it doesn't. I am guilty of doing this now. I am in the process of getting my teaching certification. Most of it is due to being selfish, but part of it is because I want to change things too.
But disability access is a bad example of this, to my mind, because I could become disabled. I walk out the door, get hit by a car and suddenly I need that ramp I walk briskly by every morning. Making sure it exists is a sensible precaution, like looking both ways before I cross the street.
The thing is people until it directly affects them feel it to be more of a burden and necessity. I remember once in college during a class we were talking about the ADA and one of the students said without an ounce of remorse, if people with disabilities want to be equal, they need to learn to walk just as far as the rest of us, and learn to ride the escalator instead of the elevator. She couldn't see how dumb that sounds. People like her are the type that want people to blend in, even when they can't blend in, and she didn't want to be burdened with those who couldn't.
The same can be said about inclusion education when it comes to those with special needs in the school system. People felt that those with disabilities would disrupt the others in the classroom, that those with disabilities should be designated to a resource room, and prior to the concept of a resource room, those people should be sent off to state schools, or worse no school at all. It is like people are unaware that disabilities come in a variety of severities and abilities. I confuse people all the time when I tell them my brother has autism and that he went to college and has a job. It confuses them a great deal, they expect him to be a complete invalid.
-------------
I'm a little biased on the subject. I have a son with some issues. I believe that it is his right to have a public school education. The school system should make provisions for him and we shouldn't have to shell out thousands of dollars for him to go to private school because the public school system doesn't want to deal with him.
I am biased too, given my brother and my uncle who is deaf, who remembers when the public school system wouldn't touch those with disabilities with a ten foot pole.
The problem is not capitalism or regulation, but extremes in either.
Capitalism run rampant, or gone unchecked, will crush the poor an powerless. At the same time, regulation run wild will strangle productivity to the point of bankrupcy. Both things have happened simultaneously.
We need to look at things objectively.
Is it really best that all business be required to have an access ramp, or do those who are dissabled need to shop some where else, or even better develop a way to be mobile enough to not require a ramp.
As insensitive as this may sound we cannot be forced to cater to everyone in every situation and still make a profit. when a company does not make a profit, it no longer exists. Govt. taking the reigns of a business is one more lost element of freedom. It represents the next step in consolidation of power with a few in stead of the masses.
Inversley, when owners of large business are seperated from the accountability of failing business, they lose all incentive to act resposibly.
Itis not "fair" and "good" for auto makers to pay union workers to do jobs that are antiquated or in many cases, pay them when they do not work at all, because legislation and the unions force them too. That is not regulation forcing them to do right but worker entitlement gone too far.
We may be confusing capitalism as a means of production with a way of life. There has yet to be found a system to produce and exchange goods as affective and even "fair" as capitalism. This does not mean an individual has to live thier daily life to maximize production. Bill Gates, Buffet, Carnegie, Rockafeller, while being Uber capitalists are also the source of some of the greatest charitable or philanthropic organizations ever.
Post a Comment