Good Intentions Gone Bad

The problem with the Americans With Disabilities Act

(Page 2 of 2)

Finally, the ADA has led to some truly bizarre results. Exxon gave ship captain Joseph Hazelwood a job after he completed alcohol rehab. Hazelwood then drank too much and let the Exxon Valdez run aground in Alaska. Exxon was sued for allowing it to happen. So Exxon prohibited employees who have had a drug or drinking problem from holding safety-sensitive jobs. The result? You guessed it—employees with a history of alcohol abuse sued under the ADA, demanding their "right" to those jobs. The federal government (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) supported the employees. Courts are still trying to sort it out.

More money for the parasites.

John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MNG||

    Bullshit, I posted the results of a study on the last discussion of this that found that decline that could be attributed to the law occurred only at the start of the law's effects and then waned into a non-factor.

  • ||

    Then re post it. What is it with you and Neu Mexican with the "I could refute this but I chose not to" tactics these days?

  • MNG||

    Why should we have the burden of correcting your memory hole?

  • ||

    Because it makes you look like stupid children even more than usually are.

  • ||

    Because you are the one trying to force us to access that memory hole to begin with.

    We call those who refuse to provide proof in their comments, after being asked for that proof, liars. So you can continue, to not provide proof all you want. It wan't bother us. We'll be fine with assuming you are a liar and blowing off all your comments as bull crap.

  • MNG||

    Hello idiot.
    I provided the proof one minute before John asked for it...

    And, how many times must we provide the proof? Hundreds? Dozens? We can't count on people to remember sometimes? Constant asking for citation is pedantic.

  • ricketson||

    Not all of us were involved in the previous conversation that you are referring to. So basically, you have to link to your proof in every conversation where you refer to it.

  • ||

    I don't think MNG gets that concept. That would involve too much thinking, lol. It's too much work for them to tie their posts together. Instead of providing proof as a reply to their original comment, or providing it in their reply to someone asking for it, they post it somewhere else that has nothing to do with their comment. Makes sense. Yet, we're the idiots, because we didn't play "Where's Waldo" with their comments, lol.

  • Fire Tiger||

    The discussion is settled because MNG said so.

  • ♥♥♥||

    Constant asking for citation is pedantic.

    [citation needed]

  • ||

    Good afternoon moron,

    I don't see your proof tied to your comments, like a competent person would do. Either as a reply to your original comment, or your reply to the comment asking for the proof. Nor do I see any directions on where to find this "proof" further down anywhere. It doesn't take too much brain power to figure out how to tie your comments together, instead of placing them all over the place so that everyone has to go on a scavenger hunt for them. I understand if you are a little retarded, brain damaged, or maybe a combination of both, how your comments might be all over the place, so if this is the case, let us know and we will put a little more effort into deciphering your comment puzzles.

    How many times must you provide proof? Well, if you post it properly, once. Since you can't figure out how to do that, in your case, it is multiple times! Learn how to post and you won't have to go through the repetition of answering replies dealing with your lack of proof! It's not rocket science.

  • Amber Lamps Chaser||

    I understand if you are a little retarded, brain damaged, or maybe a combination of both, how your comments might be all over the place, so if this is the case, let us know and we will put a little more effort into deciphering your comment puzzles.

    I smell a lawsuit! Go, ADA!

  • the right does it too||

    F the disabled and the wheelchairs they rode in on.

  • Neu Mejican||

    What is it with you and Neu Mexican with the "I could refute this but I chose not to" tactics these days?

    John. You do this more often than either MNG or I.

    You are good at searching for yourself on reason. Go back, let's say a month...and see how often you've made unsupported assertions, and how often you've failed to respond when others have pointed out factual or logical errors in your posts.

    You can, of course, choose not to refute my assertion. No skin off my back.

  • ?||

    Why? Because the law turns "protected" people into potential lawsuits.

    A friend of mine who has been unemployed for two years has managed to gain about 40 pounds in that time. To a HR department he's a walking liability. He was already fat. Now he's a blob. He can't understand why nobody will hire him. So the question is: is he "disabled", and who can he sue?

  • ||

    Homer: Oh, I'm never going to be disabled! I'm sick of being so healthy. Hey, wait...hyper-obesity!

  • Dr. Nick Riviera||

    "I recommend a steady program of gorging, combined with a strict regimen of assal horizontology..."

  • ||

    Does he have a FUPA?

  • ||

    Obesity isn't fun; I'm not going to make fun of someone for gaining 40 more lbs.

    However, isn't this a great country we live in, where being out of work for two years means you can GAIN 40 lbs.?

  • Misanthropic Bitch||

    You don't sound like you're a very good friend.

  • MNG||

    http://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html

  • MNG||

    John
    Neener, neener.

  • ||

    "This conclusion, based on the relative effects of the ADA across states with different pre-ADA state-level regimes, stands in contrast to recent empirical work using national-level data. In light of their findings, Jolls and Prescott conclude that that the apparent negative employment effect of the ADA through much of the 1990s plausibly reflects not the impact of the ADA itself, but rather other contemporaneous changes disproportionately affecting individuals with disabilities. Otherwise, the authors suggest, it is not immediately clear why the magnitude of the disabled employment effect after the ADA through much of the 1990s would have no relationship to the degree to which the ADA was a legal innovation in a given state, when the authors find clear evidence of such a relationship in the immediate post-e nactment period."

    That is hardly conclusive. Basically they are saying that the effects are due to some other cause which they don't identify. The argument is hard to follow but it seems to be saying that there was were an equal effect across all states, even ones that had pre ADA state laws. Logically the law should have affected states with no ADA laws more than those who already had them.

    Maybe. But who is to say the state levels and effectiveness of enforcement were the same? What were the penalties of the state regimes? How much recourse did the people really have? How often were the laws actually enforced? Without knowing those things, you can't make the conclusion the authors are making. It may be that none of the state laws were really very effective in practice and the feds, since they are bigger and badder and do this stuff for a living, are much more effective enforcing the law. And thus the federal regime affected every state equally. We just don't know. The authors of the study don't seem to address that possibility.

    It is an interesting study. But it is hardly the trump card you say it is.

  • Max||

    You wouldn't have some vested interest in reading the results of the study in particular way, would you? Do you have, say, an ideological bias that makes you tend to look for evidence that confirms what you already believe? Just wondering.

  • ||

    Shut up Max the adults are talking.

  • Max||

    Go fuck yourself, John.

  • ||

    Shut the fuck up Max. No one pays any attention to you. And no one cares what you think. And if you were even in the same room with anyone on here, you would get the ass beating you have richly deserved for pretty much your whole life.

  • Max||

    You need inspiration, John. Go stick your dick in some Republican's ass and meditate. Maybe you'll come up with a clever retort.

  • ||

    You should thank me for being your porn today Max. And the truth is you would probably enjoy the beating anyway.

  • Sock Puppet||

    I second that. Shut the fuck up, Max.

  • DesigNate||

    Don't be his porn.

  • Max||

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jason||

    Thank you, Max, that was very insightful.

  • Max||

    You're welcome.

  • Max||

    This whole thread is racist!

  • MNG||

    It's more of a trump than the Cato guy's figures Stossel relies on which are just an increase in the unemployed disabled occuring after passage.

  • ||

    Why? Because you say so? The increase happened. And it happened just after the act was passed. Yes, correlation is not causation. But it can be. And correlation is evidence of causation. I don't see where this study refutes that evidence very well. Sorry, but "this must have been caused by something else but we can't say what" is not very convincing.

  • MNG||

    Because the study has a little more going for it than "this happened after this, therefore the former caused the latter!"

  • MNG||

    It has "well if this causes this then we would expect that, but we don't find that, so there is reason to doubt it."

    It doesn't have to provide an answer to what caused it as it is refuting an asserted cause.

  • ||

    "It doesn't have to provide an answer to what caused it as it is refuting an asserted cause."

    If they can't provide any other plausible explanation, it has to provide some kind of answer. And further, their assertion never looks into the effectiveness of the state ADAs. Without that knowledge, you can't dismiss the federal ADA as being the cause.

  • MNG||

    "If they can't provide any other plausible explanation, it has to provide some kind of answer."

    Do you even realize how terrible the logic in that statement is?

  • ||

    It was mistype you moron. If they can't disprove the federal ADA being the cause, which they can't, and they provide a plausible alternative explanation, then they haven't said much. In this case they did neither.

    Just admit it is an inconclusive study. You kill your own credibility by being pig headed. You are right that the CATO study is just correlation. But you way over play the study you link to. You are so pig headed, that you are incapable of admitting any fault in something you agree with. You don't help yourself. You just make yourself look like a jackass.

  • MNG||

    I don't think the study is conclusive. It's evidence that undermines Stossel's evidence, which he parades as a causal relationship.

  • Max||

    Ever heard of a comma, asshole?

  • MNG||

    By this logic one cannot dismiss, say, string theory until one has a better explanation.

    It would be enough to simply point to logical or empirical shortcomings in string theory to refute it.

  • ||

    "By this logic one cannot dismiss, say, string theory until one has a better explanation."

    This is not string theory. If there is a statistically significant correlation and a plausible means of causation, that is really strong evidence actual causality. The burden to disprove that is really high.

  • MNG||

    What?

    There is a statistically significant correlation between government spending in the 1960's and the halving of the poverty rate. And a plausible explanation...

  • MNG||

    But another way of looking at that is that the only thing such an assertion has going for it is one happened after the other and a just-so story could fit it together casually. It says little.

    Now if you had a study that said "well, if government spending has that effect we would expect to find x, but we don't" then that would be even further reason to doubt it...

  • MNG||

    And John, where is there a correlation here? There's just a rise in one thing (disabled unemployment) after something else (passing of a law). Do you know what a correlation is?

  • ||

    "And John, where is there a correlation here? There's just a rise in one thing (disabled unemployment) after something else (passing of a law). Do you know what a correlation is?"

    Yes. And apparently you don't.

  • ||

    "Definition: Two random variables are positively correlated if high values of one are likely to be associated with high values of the other. They are negatively correlated if high values of one are likely to be associated with low values of the other."

    http://economics.about.com/cs/.....lation.htm

    Here we have one variable, the amount of federal ADA law, with another variable, the amount of handicapped employment. The amount of federal ADA law increased in the 1990s and the amount of handicapped employment went down. Therefore there is a negative correlation between federal ADA law and handicapped employment. Or you can use the short hand version and say there is a correlation between federal ADA and handicapped people not getting hired.

  • ricketson||

    "The amount of federal ADA law increased in the 1990s and the amount of handicapped employment went down. Therefore there is a negative correlation between federal ADA law and handicapped employment."

    Sounds like a single data point. Normally that would not be considered sufficient to demonstrate a real correlation.

  • ||

    Not really. It doesn't have anything going for it beyond "it should have affected states with existing ADA's more than others and it didn't". But as I said above, that assumes that the state ADA's were as effective as the Federal one. And they offer no evidence that they were. And further, they offer no other plausible explanation for the rise in handicapped unemployment.

    The lack of an alternative explanation, makes their study of limited value.

  • ricketson||

    The burden of proof falls on those who claim to have an explanation. If all proposed explanations can be refuted, then we simply have no explanation.

    The study that MNG provided is sufficient to reject the explanation as presented by Stossel (which was never really anything more than speculation to begin with). There may be some way to rescue Stossel's theory, but until that analysis has been done, there is no reason to give any weight to Stossel's theory.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Well I would assume that the law was intended to help more disabled people get jobs. While there is no evidence the bill was the direct cause of higher unemployment among the disabled, one could still argue the bill obviously didn't work.

  • Jonathan||

    Lets say that the ADA isn't responsible for the reduction of employment among disabled Americans. (I'm not ceding that to be the case. The link you provided only stated that the drop in employment was persistent, even in states that already had similar laws in place. To call that absolute proof of the lack of causality seems premature.) The fact still stands that the ADA did cost businesses in general a large amount of money, along with tons of unnecessary lawsuits filed by people who are just milking the system. Even without it causing disabled people to become less employable, it still is a terrible idea.

  • Max||

    John Stossel clearly has a brain defect, and he's working. Does that have anything to do with the law, or is having a brain defect simply a requirement for writing for Reason?

  • ♥♥♥||

    Who's the more foolish: the fool or the fool who reads him?

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • Max||

    I have this disease that makes me accuse people of being racist with no proof on my part. Does that mean I am disabled? And if so, where do I pick up my checks?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Wait, are you saying increasing the cost of something means people will consume less of it? When did this phenomenon come about?

  • MNG||

    Well, when coupled with a costly prohibition on willfully not buying that something it might not mean that.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Backward-sloping demand curves for everyone!

  • ricketson||

    "Wait, are you saying increasing the cost of something means people will consume less of it?"

    The effect of the ADA cannot be summed up so simply -- it transfers costs from the employee/customer to the business, rather than simply increasing the costs for the business.

    All of these transactions involve two parties...so if we want to understand why the number of transactions is changing then we need to look at it from the perspective of each party.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Transference of cost from the individual to the business is, from the view of the business, a cost increase.

  • ||

    "from the view of the business, a cost increase."

    Yes, but it takes two to tango.

    If the handicapped cannot do a job with a reasonable amount of personal cost (because the facilities are not handicapped accessible), then he will quit the job and be just as unemployed as if the employer decided that it was too expensive to hire him.

  • ||

    LOL, wow that Stossel dude really is WAY too full of himself.

    www.real-privacy.ua.tc

  • ||

    Missed alt text opportunity. How about: "Message: I care about gimps."

  • MNG||

    A great deal of the lawsuits under the ADA have been against governments. You'd think libertarians could respect that.

  • ||

    "A great deal of the lawsuits under the ADA have been against governments taxpayers. You'd think libertarians could respect that."

  • Fire Tiger||

    Since the percentage of disability lawsuits that the plantif ends up losing is in the mid to high 80s, there does seem to be alot of frivilous lawsuits being filed. Even lawsuits that were filed under the Section 504 of federal law (enacted in 1973), saw a significant increase in lawsuits, and a corresponding increase in pro defendent outcomes, 64.9% pre-ADA vs 87.5% post. So I am not certain where your belief that libertarians would respect "ADA lawsuits".

  • Max||

    Stossel's brain defect is called brain pan leakage. It can be brought on by reading one of Ayn Rand's novels twice.

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • Doctor||

    Leave the medical diagnosis to me, kid. Perhaps you should get yourself checked out instead, as it appears you're suffering from a serious case of cranial rectal inversion.

  • MNG||

    I actually like Stossel. He's a bit of a ideologue, but he's a hardworking reporter and smart man who often has an interesting angle on things. He's just not always right...

  • Max||

    Ideologues don't make good reporters.

  • The Gobbler||

    or posters.

  • Special Sauce||

    Or Presidents.

  • Max||

    But I'll believe everything Olbermann says!

  • Holy Cow||

    Ahh, yes, the liberal compassion for the disabled and the mentally challenged. Why, just ask Trig Palin all about it!

    Anyway, is the ADA to blame for the rise in handicapped parking spots and handicapped FREE PARKING placards? What a crock!

    I've maybe seen 2 truly disabled drivers in my time roaming Gaia.

    And about 4,231,089 drivers who look perfectly fine as they jog those 3 feet from car door to front door.

    But let's not forget this great new revenue stream. $350 parking tickets, even if you're parking in a private business lot, after hours, on a Sunday night, with your blinkers on, sitting in your car.

    Go Bureaucrats!

  • Oliver Wendell Holmes||

    I gave a compassionate solution in Buck v. Bell.

  • Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.||

    This man is an impostor!

  • Virginia||

    Forced sterilization? Oliver, your boy got shot storming the Discovery bldg yesterday.

  • André||

    I lol'd.

  • Asharak||

    Leave it up to Holy Cow to bring the phony outrage. The Reason H&R piece wasn't defending the ADA and not even the most blinkered cosmotarian thinks it's a good idea, so I don't know what you're carrying on about.

    Then again, you're the same guy who thinks libertarians should still make common cause with people who want to make sodomy and strip clubs illegal (just two proposals that are currently on the Texas GOP platform), let alone continue the War on Drugs.

  • DesigNate||

    No shit?! How did you hear about the sodomy and strip clubs thing? I live in Texas and that upsets me greatly.

  • JIM||

    I would not care so much about the spaces except that they are always empty? There seem to be 5x as many as necessary.

  • Holy Cow||

    Ahh, yes, the liberal compassion for the disabled and the mentally challenged. Why, just ask Trig Palin all about it!

    Anyway, is the ADA to blame for the rise in handicapped parking spots and handicapped FREE PARKING placards? What a crock!

    I've maybe seen 2 truly disabled drivers in my time roaming Gaia.

    And about 4,231,089 drivers who look perfectly fine as they jog those 3 feet from car door to front door.

    But let's not forget this great new revenue stream. $350 parking tickets, even if you're parking in a private business lot, after hours, on a Sunday night, with your blinkers on, sitting in your car.

    Go Bureaucrats!

  • omg||

    I think lefties get particularly riled up about this issue. I told a left once that I didn't like the idea of handicapped parking spots (because they are a government intrusion into private property, and that the businesses would likely accommodate the handicapped anyway), and I really thought he was going to punch me afterwards.

  • Max Chony||

    Businesses do things for profit, they don't do things to be nice to their customers!

  • nekoxgirl||

    If businesses aren't nice to their customers, they won't make very much profit.

  • MNG||

    Dude, this bill passed the house by voice vote, the Senate like 80-9 and was signed into law by a GOP President. I don't think it's a leftie thing per se...

  • ||

    No it is not. It is certainly bi-partisan. But that doesn't make it any better of a law or anything beyond the bluntest of instruments to deal with the problem.

  • MNG||

    See, I don't see the law as that blunt. It has exceptions (small employers) and limitations (reasonable accomodations).

  • ||

    Becuase it does things like make every building build a wheel chair ramp, even if the building is never frequented by people with disabilities or there are not better alternatives. There are great examples of places like post offices where disabled people just went in the back door for years had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars building ramps that no one used because it was still easier to go in the back door. Also, the law and regs seem to pretend that being in a wheel chair is the only disability. Thus, it mandates door handles that totally screw people with arthritis. It basically imposes a one size fits all solution from the top and prevents people from working out solutions on their own.

  • Neu Mejican||

    This is a factual error. The law does not prevent people from working out their own solutions. It requires them to work out their own solutions. An important difference.

  • ||

    No. It forces them to into particular forms of accommodation.

    Take a look at the federal accessibility guidelines and tell me that they let people work it out on their own.

    http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.1

  • Neu Mejican||

    I would just point you to the subsections on exceptions.

  • kinnath||

    Wheel chair accessible drinking fountains in the middle of the golf course with nothing but grass in all directions for hundreds of yards.

  • Michael Slivka||

    How about braille-encoded drive-thru ATM's?

  • Neu Mejican||

    How about braille-encoded drive-thru ATM's?

    Makes sense to me. I drive my blind neighbor to the bank. He sits in the back seat. I pull up to the ATM and he does his banking business. We leave. I don't know his pin number, how much money he got/deposited. He has the same access to the machine as a sighted person would.

    Is that so difficult for you to see?

  • Max||

    I'd love to use a blunt intrument on you.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Look for Max on the evening news soon.

  • ||

    This is not a BDSM porn board max. Go to bondage.com for that kind of stuff.

  • Chronic||

    Make sure to fill the blunt instrument with me first.

  • Freud||

    Interesting. Tell me more about your mother, Max. Point to this doll where she touched you.

  • omg||

    I can't really see a right or center-right person getting riled up about businesses being allowed to decide what they can and can't do with their property.

    If your point is "republicans don't read bills and can't understand the unintended consequences of their actions", then I would agree with you.

  • MNG||

    They read the bill. Dole championed it in his 96 run so much it was almost silly.

  • omg||

    Democrats have championed the healthcare and bailout bills and they haven't read either, even now. Do you think that just because someone talks about it necessitates that they have read it?

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    ya then he had the nerve to claim he was a "Tenther" (altough that word didn't exist then).

  • sarcasmic||

    Liberals assume that if you don't want the government to force people to do something, then you don't want that something to be done at all.

    Bastiat said it best:
    "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

  • omg||

    "confuses the distinction between government and society"

    That's a feature, not a bug.

  • Benito Mussolini||

    We call the blending of government and state "corporatism" since the government is the head of the body (Latin: corpus) of society.

  • Krammit the Forg||

    This article is well timed, the ADA design guidelines are about to be changed this year I think. John mentioned the large toilet stalls, well, now, one-holers (public bathrooms with only one toilet) are about to get a lot bigger due to new clearance guidelines. This will eat up floor space that could otherwise accommodate additional staff or capital resources.

  • Captain Jame T Kirk||

    This will eat up floor space that could otherwise accommodate additional staff or capital resources or additional crappers.

  • Jason||

    More lines, oh, boy!

    Which means waiting longer for the SO to get back from the bathroom.

  • The Gobbler||

    What's SO?

  • Zeb||

    Wife, woman, beotch, tail, whatever you want to call it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    That fat moo-cow you pledge to love, honor and obey, who has you on the hook for half of your present assets and future earnings.

  • The Gobbler||

    Oh, I see. Significant Other.

    She's in the downstairs freezer.

  • ||

    Whatever the intent of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace, they've had the effect of making HR departments huge and anyone in a protected class difficult to discipline, let alone fire for cause. Is that a good thing? If you're a plaintiffs' attorney, I suppose.

  • MNG||

    But where else could the mentally disabled work in such high numbers Pro? ;)

  • ||

    That's about right, but I've got to tell you that whatever good the ADA and other laws are supposed to bring, the fraud and abuse are a huge, huge problem.

  • sarcasmic||

    Laws written by lawyers are supposed to create work for lawyers.

    The ADA has accomplished its unstated goal with flying colors!

  • ||

    Way I see it.

  • Abdul||

    It's true. As opposed to anti-discrimination laws about color or national origin, the ADA gives an opening to people who basically don't want to work and claim it's because of a disability.

    There is no upper limit on the number of people who want to cram into that opening.

  • ||

    You don't have to search too hard on the Intarnetz before you find some forum where there are people who manage to sit at their computers and screw around online all day despite having some "disability" that prevents them from working. WTF do you think the rest of us are doing? Where's my disability check, bitches?

    Also, in a former volunteer gig (that I eventually quit out of disgust with just such all-too-common situations), I met an awful lot of "needy" people on disability who mysteriously had no problems screwing, grunting out more Welfare chilluns, and hustling their "disabled" asses to Walmart at 5:00 a.m. the day after Thanksgiving to fist-fight their neighbors for a cheap piece of electronics.

    Seriously, any time somebody claiming "disability" turns up pregnant, sits upright more than 4 hours a day to screw around online, or shows up in one of those big-box pre-dawn store queues on Black Friday, kick their asses right off disability.

  • Jales||

    I'm not saying I disagree..but blind and deaf people can turn up pregnant, sit upright for 4 hours a day screwing around online, and show up for sales. LOL

  • ||

    I'd venture to say that the blind and deaf (and a couple other categories) are precisely the people ADA was intended to help, and most folks even here don't disagree with that sentiment.

    It just gets taken too far, and extended to an awful lot of bullshit "disabilities".

  • sarcasmic||

    government

  • Barney Frank||

    In Congress, of course!

  • sarcasmic||

    But where else could the mentally disabled work in such high numbers Pro? ;)

    What do you do for a living?

    That should answer the question.

  • Attorney||

    It's a good thing even if you represent employers.

  • ||

    Right. We win anyway you look at it. Maybe we should skip all of this skulduggery and just become landed aristocrats with serfs and stuff. A lot simpler.

  • The Gobbler||

    I could get behind that, Pro.

  • Attorney||

    Or city officials in California!

  • ||

    Almost the same thing.

  • Neu Mejican||

    http://jhr.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/XXXIX/4/887

    This paper replicates recent findings that employment among disabled people has declined since the ADA. A closer look indicates that this decline results from a drop in the labor force participation rate among those classified as disabled. Further analysis indicates that this labor force participation rate decline, however, was not the result of disabled individuals fleeing the labor market, but, rather, more likely a result of the reclassification of nondisabled, nonparticipants, as disabled. The unconditional employment probability among disabled people (taking selection into the labor market into account) has not declined, and may have actually improved for certain disability classifications
  • ||

    That is a much better paper than the one MNG cites. Sadly, you can only read the abstract. If they changed the definition of disabled, then the employment statistics from one year to the next are not comparable.

    That is an issue I would like to hear CATO address. Too bad you can't read that article online.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Well...this is an area of science where it is probably impossible to establish causation with any degree of certainty. Numbers often just make the just-so story more palatable.

    In the study I linked to...(which I had no problem accessing)...the strongest part of their argument is not the fancy math, but the fact that those stuck at home due to a disability, who previously were not counted as disabled, are now counted and that this increase in the number of people considered disabled is necessary to interpret the employment rate (which loses this information).

    It is because Stossel misses this kind of stuff that he is a hack. That study took 30 seconds to find...five minutes to read. Whether or not one thinks it is definitive, Stossel should have at least looked into the issue at enough depth that he could present or refute these kinds of alternative explanations.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hmmm...this was meant to be a reply to MNG below. Wonder how that happened.

  • ||

    You must be a subscriber to the Journal of Human Resources then because it asked me to sign in and pay for access.

    "but the fact that those stuck at home due to a disability, who previously were not counted as disabled, are now counted and that this increase in the number of people considered disabled is necessary to interpret the employment rate"

    That would affect the rate but not the raw numbers of handicapped people employed. Counting more people as being "handicapped" to include people sitting at home, would increase the unemployment rate (or in contrast decrease the employment rate) of the handicapped. But it wouldn't decrease the total number handicapped people employed since the new ones counted are not employed.

    It is not clear in the article if Stossell is talking about employment rate or total employment. He says

    "Strangely, no. An MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39."

    What does "employment" mean in this sentence? If the MIT study is talking about raw numbers employed, versus the percentage of the total number of handicapped employed, then your study doesn't do shit to disprove it.

    I would think twice before calling anyone a hack.

  • Neu Mejican||

    John

    "Strangely, no. An MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39."

    What does "employment" mean in this sentence?

    Who knows? I can't tell because John Stossel is a hack that didn't properly reference the study or explain his terms.

    I would think twice before calling anyone a hack.

    I always do.

  • ||

    Here I found it for you. And they are measuring employment by weeks worked. It pretty much demolishes the paper you cite. And MNG's as well. I would encourage you to read it.

    "Figure 2 plots average weeks worked by age group. Weeks worked by
    disabled men aged 21–39 (fig. 2a) dropped sharply between 1992 and
    1993, and those by disabled women aged 21–39 started falling in 1992.
    Weeks worked by men aged 40–58 (fig. 2b) also show a marked decline
    between 1992 and 1993. In contrast, there was an increase in weeks
    worked by disabled women aged 40–58 between 1992 and 1993."

    http://econ-www.mit.edu/files/17

  • Neu Mejican||

    Wait...it demolishes a paper you haven't read that came out two years later?

    The conclusions of earlier analyses have not been good news for advocates of the ADA; employment levels among all disabled people have steadily declined throughout the 1990s (for example, see DeLeire 2000 and Acemoglu and Angrist 2001). These previous studies, however, have failed to control for selection into the labor market and have confounded conclusions about employment outcomes
    with labor supply issues.
  • ||

    That doesn't seem to be correct. The MIT paper is relating to weeks worked. Why did weeks work drop?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Sorry John,
    I've got to get back to work now. You can read the study yourself. It is a direct response to the study you linked to (and Stossel fails to cite properly).

    If you find specific problems with their analysis, I'll respond later if I get a chance.

  • ||

    I'm totally on your side here, John, but I have to agree that this quote doesn't prove any point, because they're still talking about averages.

    If we have 10 disabled people and 5 of them worked full time, for a total of 250 weeks, the average is 25 weeks. Now let's classify 5 more people as disabled, one of whom also worked full time. Now the average weeks worked is only 20 (300/15).

    So even though the number of working people classified as "disabled" actually went UP by 20%, the average weeks worked went DOWN by 20%.

  • The Gobbler||

    Or it could be that chronic alcoholics now get SS disability payments. They are considered both disabled and unemployed now, instead of just drunks.

  • MNG||

    This is a good example of non-ermpirical economic thought's problems. If one accepts certain logical axioms then in theory yes this can be explained after the fact like Stossel does. But it's an exercise in "just so" storytelling. One must go out and empirically test propositions, not just weigh their logic...

  • ||

    The problem with empirical evience, is that if anyone is honest about not hiring a diabled person because they are disabled, that person just confessed to discrimination, and subjected themselves to civil penalties, compensatory and punitive damages, and the right to pay the plaintiff's lawyer's fees for them. It is just like violating any other law that shifts civil rights from one person to another. That is why most racial discrimination cases are proved with statistical evidence--because no one in their right mind is going to admit they refused to hire someone because of their race.

    BTW--When th ADA first went into effect, I was a first year associate at a mid-sized law firm. We had a position open, and three disabled folks came in to interview--each accompanied by their lawyer. The message was loud and clear--make sure all your clients know we are coming after them if they discriminate. The end result was that clients did their best to come up with some other rational reason to hire non-disabled people because they knew the disabled were a litigation time-bomb. That mind set has not changed.

  • IceTrey||

    You need a fact checker Stossel. Hazelwood didn't ground the Valdez. The third mate was in charge of the wheelhouse at the time. The ship was also on autopilot when it hit the reef. Hazelwood was sleeping off a bender at the time.

  • ||

    My families resteraunt got hit by one of those people. He would just go around, and then threaten lawsuits. Most people of course would settle out of court.

    Quite the racket, I think when the mob does it they call it blackmail.

    I think some outstanding judge eventually told him he couldn't sue anymore.

  • Rich||

    If the government can require the auto industry to provide higher gas mileage, why doesn't the government require the wheelchair industry to provide devices that climb stairs and fit standard restroom stalls?

  • Max||

    In Libertarian theology, the government is the Great Evil, and everything it does is EVIL. Didn't you read the catechism?

  • Rich||

    Please, Max, just answer my question.

  • Max||

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!

  • sarcasmic||

    I see Max is another of those intellectually impaired lefttards who is unable to comprehend the distinction between limited government and no government.

    Let me try to spell it out in terms that a tenth grader might understand.

    Here are some definitions of limited:
    1. confined within bounds; restricted
    2. circumscribed or narrow in scope or extent
    3. brief; very short: a limited time

    That does not mean "nothing at all".

    So when you argue that libertarians view everything the government does as evil, you are arguing against your imagination.

  • ||

    One of the problems with the word libertarian, is that it represents such a broad spectrum of beliefs from a fairly robust system of state governance (jurisprudence, military, police) to total anarcho-capitalism. The "progressives" simply do not wish to delve into the libertarian mind deeply enough to understand it. I think they may be concerned that if they studied the basic principles of libertarianism they would find it too rational and fair to operate in the world of vendetta and retribution they are trying to create.

  • progressive||

    One of the problems with the word progressive, is that it represents such a broad spectrum of beliefs from a fairly robust system of state governance (jurisprudence, military, police) to total anarcho-syndicalism. The "libertarians" simply do not wish to delve into the progressive mind deeply enough to understand it. I think they may be concerned that if they studied the basic principles of progressivism they would find it too rational and fair to operate in the world of winner take all they are trying to create.

  • ||

    If the underlying tenet of progressivism (we are right and you are wrong! And that we have the right to use the full coercive force of the government to make you adhere to our beliefs) is rational, then I concede. However a progressivism that tolerates dissent, diverse opinions and that all individuals have rights to diverse opinionsand rights beyond their ethnic tribe and gender--the whole mess starts looking a whole lot like libertarianism. You mistakenly believe that libertarians are conservatives, this is simply untrue. I hear that claim constantly from the left, which tells me they do not care to go into it deep enough to understand it. I can't speak for all libertarians, but I believe libertarians understand progressives quite well, we just disagree with them.
    I am no libertarian scholar, but I'll bet if you read the works of the man who founded this magazine, Tibor Machan, you might see what libertarianism really is.

  • sarcasmic||

    The "libertarians" simply do not wish to delve into the progressive mind deeply enough to understand it.

    The progressive "mind" is quite easy to understand.

    The value fairness over justice, libertarians value justice and couldn't give a fuck about fairness.

    Fairness is emotional, justice is rational.

    There ain't much else to it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Progressives see that life is not fair and it makes them mad, and they demand that government "fixes" it.

    Libertarians accept that that life isn't fair, and they deal with it like adults.

  • Zeb||

    No. I have delved into the progressive mind. It always basically comes down to wanting to impose your preferences on other people. Sometimes this is disguised as thinking that you know what is best for people, or that your political opponents have hidden and nefarious motives. But it generally comes down to "the people I like to associate with are right about everything, and everyone else is stupid, so we have the right to impose what we think is best by force".

    This is not to say that conservatives or libertarians are not immune to this sort of thinking, there are certainly plenty of examples of that. But such thinking is not at all what libertarianism is about. A lot of assholes are attracted to libertarianism, but the fact that they think that everyone else is an idiot is more a result of their asshole-ism than of libertarianism. I would argue that such thinking is essential to progressivism.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, that is true.
    And it is usually with the best of stated intentions, usually something about "fairness".

    It isn't "fair" that such and such outcome happened, so they must impose a rule to make the outcome "fair".

    And if you challenge whatever rule it is that they are trying to impose, you are accused of supporting the "unfair" outcome.

    It's 100% based on emotion.

  • ||

    Question, can you be fair to everyone without being unfair to some?

  • sarcasmic||

    You can be just to everyone without being fair to anyone.

  • sarcasmic||

    and you can be just to everyone and be fair to everyone.

  • sarcasmic||

    However you can be fair and unjust

  • Shoeless Chris||

    To be fair, the conservative mind shares this trait too. Blue Laws, an overt interest in other peoples bedroom activities, War on Drugs etc.

  • sarcasmic||

    no?

  • Zeb||

    In case you have not had much experience with Max, he is a worthless piece of shit who only comes here to hassle people and never contributes anything worthwhile. It is not worth the effort engaging with him at all.

  • Max||

    Libertoid assholes engage me all the time, so go suck Ron Paul's cock, you moronic little prick.

  • Zeb||

    See what I mean?

  • lol wut?||

    Successful troll is successful.

    Max is a special type of creature, probably protected under the ADA. Sadly, mental midgets seem to be on an increase in this country. Oh, I mean mental little people.

  • Asharak||

    Another thing about Max is that his vitriol is fake and hypocritical, of course. It's one thing if he were a genuine progressive/leftist of the Counterpunch or left-anarchist variety, but no, he's just an Obamabot Democrat who chooses to overlook Obama's own pro-corporatist agenda as well as continuing the Afghan war (the same can be said about Chad).

    It's no wonder the fauxgressive feels the need to chase after libertarian boogeyman.

  • Max||

    Okay, asshole. Most of what the government does is evil. How is that? It's just as stupidly doctrinaire as saying everything the government does is evil. Most of what goes on within the confines of your skull is moronic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Grow up.

  • Max||

    Calm down.

  • sarcasmic||

    You wouldn't mumble so much if you stopped sucking my dick.

  • Max||

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!

  • Max||

    Most of what the private sector does is REALLY evil.

  • ||

    Oh I totally agree...

    It's really awful how private citizens and businesses have invented fire and language and the wheel and agriculture and the internal combustion engine and telephones and radio transmission and airplanes and rockets and satellites and computers.

    Just imagine, if the private sector had not foisted all that crap on us over the millennia, we could all still be innocent naked nymphs frolicking in the garden of Eden.

    Or, the other way of looking at it, crapping in caves and angrily grunting to each other because nobody was fast enough to catch a couple of sabre-toothed squirrels for dinner. And government had not invented the bow and arrow yet because the Caveman Congress spent the last year haggling over earmarks in the weapons research appropriations bill.

    Apologies to all for being his porn, but...this was just too juicy, I had to bite.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Hobbesian.

  • ||

    How does a fairly uncomplicated system of well defined negative rights constitute an religion? If anything a libertarian position does not constitute a system of moral values, it permits almost any system of moral values to operate under its philosophy. A libertarian holds a purely political position, while both republicans and democrats have adopted an ethos and dogma, adherence to which shall be enforced at the end of barrel of a gun. Contemporary leftists do not tolerate dissent. If anything can be considered a religion its the belief system of the current left. Look specifically at the relationship between modern "progressive" thought and catholic values, dogma and enforcement. "Progressivism," is a secularized reprint of Catholic Dogma.

  • James Jay Lee||

    INVENT, DAMN YOU!!

  • Rich||

    Bingo.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think I can fairly assume the topic of the program on the Fox Business Network at 9pm EST.

  • Pip||

    You know what I hate? Those mutherfucking cappers in wheel chairs that go about 15 mph down the sidewalk, forcing you to jump out of the way. I am not kidding when I tell you that whenever this happens to me, no matter how many people are around, I yell at them, "Fucking slow down, asshole!"

  • ricketson||

    I hate those damn drivers (and car-centric city planners) who don't leave any space for small vehicles on the road.

  • Pip||

    Huh?

  • Zeb||

    Are you suggesting that wheelchairs should be on the road rather than the sidewalk?

  • ||

    Yes, if they want to travel 15MPH in a motorized vehicle, then they should be in the road. Just as bikes and scooters and Segways should be in the road.

    But if the operator feels that riding in the road puts his life at risk, then he will ride on the sidewalk.

    Sure you can yell at them for doing this, but to be consistent you also need to yell at the drivers who eliminate any other reasonable option (often due to violation of the rules of the road).

  • ||

    Sadly, I bet you could say the same things about the EEOC and EEOC claims. Many employers shy away from minorities because they are difficult to fire and litigious.

  • Quotas||

    Permit me to offer a remedy.

  • ||

    Do tell.

  • sarcasmic||

    quotas

  • ||

    Ok Sarcasmic, now you are getting absurd. Let me see shall I continue this argument? Nah, I'll just turn the tables on Progressives...All white progressives are deep cover racists who want to keep the poor blacks and browns down so they can continue to pity them and thus feed their self-rightuousness. Look in the mirror dude, your sensitivity to the plight of others is nothing more than vanity. If you really gave a damn about helping the poor blacks and browns you would not be here arguing nonsense, you would be living in Africa, feeding the poor.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was being sarcastic since the guy's name was Quotas.

    chill

  • Fire Tiger||

    Freakin hillarious thread, the paper cited by Neu Mejican directly contradicts the paper cited by MNG as the end all.

    Neu Mejican's states that all states and anti-discrimination laws in place, MNG's is based on comparing states with to those without. Neu Mejican's states there is no unemployment changed pre and post ADA, while MNG's paper seeks to find the cause of pre and post unemployment changes.

    A better link the Neu's paper is found here.

    Take aways from the article are that ADA did not change employment outcomes and "The lack of significant impact of the ADA does raise the issue of the merit of its labor market provisions."

    Which they further expand by stating that "Finding no impact of such legislation at the state level, as well, however, provides fairly strong evidence that such legislation is the culmination of changes that had already been incorporated into the labor market." bold added

    To the question of if "the ADA serves no practical purpose?" The authors state that though there has been no tangible effect produced, the law servers the purpose of "proclaiming or social values."

    Basically the maket place provisions are no more than mental masturbation.

  • Researcher||

    Even if a penguin were enlarged to be 50 feet tall, its brain would still be smaller than the average human's. But the important point is it did get larger.

  • Researcher II||

    If we increase the size of the penguin until it is the same height as the man and then compare the relative brain sizes, we now find that the penguin's brain is still smaller. But, and this is the point, it is larger than it was.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Racist.

  • ||

    Great post.

  • Jahn Stossel||

    But, but...the ADA made employment decline for those with disabilities. I read that somewhere, so I built an argument around that fact.

  • Neu Mejican||

    From the study

    Analysis of the SIPP data provided confirmatory evidence of the CPS results and allowed a closer evaluation of employment probabilities by type of disability. It was found that those with mental disorders and those with disabilities classified as "other" experienced a positive employment impact of the ADA. Workers with musculoskeletal and internal system disabilities did not experience any different employment probability growth than those without disabilities.

    Details always matter, in my estimation. The fact that so much of the focus is on those with physical as opposed to mental or developmental disabilities makes it seem as though the market has already taken care of the problem. But, of course, those with mental or developmental disabilities face relatively greater, more ingrained discrimination in the area of employment...and, it seems, have benefited the most from legal remedies. The fact is, of course, that accommodations for these individuals are often also less costly as you are not talking about altering physical structures, but processes and practices.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Also, I think, important as it more drectly responds to Stossel's assertions:

    This lack of deterioration in the employment condition facing the disabled suggests that the rather dramatic declines in the labor supply of the disabled is not likely the result of feedback effects or fear of negative outcomes.

    Of course, there is still a problem to be addressed. It seems neither the market nor the ADA has solved that problem. It is likely that any improvements in that direction will come as a result of the "proclaiming" that Fire Tiger dismisses, whereby a shift in the procedures and practices of our society comes about as a result of changes in attitudes. Some of that change in attitude will result from legal incentives from the government. Some will come from market forces.

  • Fire Tiger||

    Of course, there is still a problem to be addressed. It seems neither the market nor the ADA has solved that problem.
    One of the biggest problems is a government imposed problem, that neither the ADA nor the market can fix. Even advocates for the disabled aknowledge that the federal benefits programs for the disabled create disincentives to work. As Sen. Kennedy stated, "once persons are on the rolls, it is too risky to come off".

  • Neu Mejican||

    Fire Tiger.
    Indeed. Restructuring of many policies would go a long way towards improving the situation.

  • ||

    The fact is, of course, that accommodations for these individuals are often also less costly as you are not talking about altering physical structures, but processes and practices.

    Actually, the accommodations can be more costly, though not structural. If you've ever had a bipolar co-worker or supervisor, you'd know what I'm talking about. An employee with a mental disorder can be a ticking time bomb, dramatically increasing an employer's liability to litigation from either the mentally ill worker, or his/her co-workers.

    Plus, because mental disorders are not obvious and rarely diagnosed during normal, routine visits to a primary care doctor, the employee can act crazy and threatening toward his/her co-workers, then later claim "undiagnosed mental disorders" were the cause, style him/herself as a member of an ADA-protected class with the help of a lawyer, and thus make it very difficult for an employer to can his/her crazy ass.

    And yes, I speak from anecdotal experience. As the former subordinate of just such a wacko.

  • Neu Mejican||

    zero,

    That is why I used the word "often" rather than "always."

    It is important to keep in mind, however, that the person, under ADA, must be able to perform the job with reasonable accommodations. There is no problem "canning their crazy ass" if their disability makes them unable to do their job after those reasonable accommodations are in place. ADA does not provide the person with mental health impairments any license to abuse subordinates. If that behavior would get someone else canned...it can get the bipolar person canned.

  • Fire Tiger||

    I am interested in where you found the detail that those with developmental disabilities showed any increase in employment outcomes. I realize that those with developmental disabilities are members of the mental group but so are alcoholics or the drug addicts. And unless I missed something in my reading, you are misrepresenting the conclusions found in the article.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Fire Tiger...
    I might be misreading, but I don't think so.

    See page 6

    neurological and mental disorders is (typically) the third largest

    (Neuro)developmental disorder is a disability subcategory of neurological disorders and those developmental disorders not included there would fall under "Other."

    It is possible I am missing something, but that would be the typical way to lump the groups.

  • MJ||

    "Proclaiming our social values", in other words: "legislating morality".

    The difference between the left and right in legislating morality is that the left denies that what they promote is a species of morality.

  • Tony||

    fairness does not mean treating disabled people the same as non-disabled people. Rather it means accommodating them. In other words, the law requires that people be treated unequally.

    What a perfect distillation of the central libertarian fallacy. That your inability to park in the closest, bestest parking spot available is a bigger burden, a greater injustice than not being able to fucking walk.

    Sprinkle in some silly anecdotes, bitch about lawsuits. Presto, we have the philosophy of "it's all about me." Hard to pull yourself up from your bootstraps if you don't have legs.

  • ||

    And your comment is the perfect distillation of the central liberal fallacy. Big Brother is necessary, good and always right.

    As a libertarian I believe people should be able to live their lives without having to ask for a "by your leave" from the government at every turn. The ADA is one of the many laws that make us all have "check with Big Brother" before we do anything. Does this make for a better world? No.

  • BakedPenguin||

    You forgot "every problem can be solved by laws, and there are never any unforeseen negative consequences".

  • Tony||

    What about the ADA makes you have to check in with the totalitarian state?

  • DesigNate||

    If you build or renovate a building, lease space, etc. with a value over 50k you are forced, by law, to register the project with the state where the project is located.

    Sounds like you're checking in with mom and dad to me.

    This of course does not apply to residential buildings (including apartments).

  • straw man||

    You slay me!

    Aaaauuuuggghhh!

  • Tony||

    Almost every single response by a libertarian to me, including the two above, are strawman arguments. It's okay when you do it? You guys are absolutists about everything, therefore I must be too?

  • Asharak||

    Tony, hasn't it occurred to you that maybe some people don't like the ADA because it's a crappy law that redundantly goes too far in some areas and yet doesn't do enough where it needs it most in others? This country's transportation system still inconveniences most physically and mentally handicapped people who are unable to drive and the ADA doesn't do anything about that, yet bureaucrats and lawmakers still give themselves pats on the back because handicapped parking spaces are required to be everywhere.

  • Tony||

    The only beef that I have expressed is with Stossel's implication that somehow disabled people are being given special privileges over non-disabled people.

    This is a common thread in libertarian thought. Somehow the poor are more privileged than the rich because they are taxed at a lower rate. I could go on.

    I'm not saying the ADA is perfect by any means.

  • Asharak||

    Just because a lot of libertarians happen to be heartless assholes and hypocrites (I myself have called out some libertarians on their inconsistency on transportation/transit issues) doesn't make the line of reasoning you seem to be going with any less wrong: That all libertarians are heartless assholes and hypocrites. That libertarianism and the GOP/Tea Party/Beckian Right are the same thing (I take it you've never seen the Texas GOP's platform). That libertarian ideas are responsible for ruining the country even though they've never actually been applied. That we all worship Ayn Rand (In reality, she loathed libertarians).

  • Tony||

    Meh, I'll get nuanced about libertarians the day they get nuanced about liberals.

    It's true that a fully libertarian society has never been tried, but libertarian axioms have been used as the philosophical backing for many policies that have been implemented. Either that or modern libertarians have bought into a lot of what passes for economic thought from GOP think tanks.

    I can understand why you wouldn't want to claim credit for the policies that eventually resulted in economic calamity--but in doing so I bet the argument would be that they weren't libertarian enough, not that they went too far in a libertarian direction, which is what I believe to be the case. I think libertarians have achieved quite a bit of influence in US policy. Unfortunately for all the wrong reasons--not because the ideas are good, but because they are plausible-sounding enough to give cover to all the looting and destruction committed by the corporate power apparatus.

  • sarcasmic||

    How do you define libertarian policy?

    This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not asking for an answer for the purpose of shooting it down.

    I want to know what "libertarian policy" means to you.

  • Tony||

    Less regulation of industry, lower taxes, smaller social safety net.

  • sarcasmic||

    Less regulation of industry by government, lower taxes, smaller social government safety net.

    Libertarians do not oppose regulation. Libertarians oppose heavy-handed one-size-fits-all government regulation enforced by men with guns.

    Can't argue against lower taxes, except when they are not accompanied by lower spending and result in massive debt.

    Libertarians do not oppose voluntary charity. Libertarians oppose charity collected by men with guns, because then it ceases to be voluntary.

    Close, but you're still stuck in the 'society government' fallacy.

  • sarcasmic||

    'society government' didn't come out right. I put a logical equivalency sign in between, but it didn't make it through.

  • Tony||

    sarcasmic,

    By government I'm referring to a particular form, one that is the administrator of a society's collective will. Sure a totalitarian government is bad. We can all agree with that. But not all forms of government are totalitarian, but you wouldn't know that listening to libertarians.

    Voluntary charity just doesn't cut the mustard if your goal is a level playing field for the purpose of greater freedom and equality. And there's nothing involuntary about doing it with our government, as long as you have the right to vote for it. Sometimes doing things with government is just the most efficient way.

  • :(||

    Voluntary charity just doesn't cut the mustard if your goal is a level playing field for the purpose of greater freedom and equality.

    Exactly. Americans are the biggest dipshits on the Earth who wouldn't know charity if it bit them in the ass.

  • sarcasmic||

    who wouldn't know charity if it bit them in the ass

    I can assume you have never been to church?

  • sarcasmic||

    plausible-sounding enough to give cover to all the looting and destruction committed by the corporate power apparatus

    I see you are busy slaying the 'limited government equals crony capitalism' straw man.

    Sorry to interrupt.

    Carry on.

  • straw man||

    Aaauuuggghh!
    Right through the heart!
    I'm dying!

  • :(||

    The only beef that I have expressed is with Stossel's implication that somehow disabled people are being given special privileges over non-disabled people.

    The handicap are given special privileges when private businesses are forced to accommodate, not only at a cost, but at a risk of being sued.

    This is a common thread in libertarian thought.

    More like a common misconception about Libertarian thought. Let's quote Bastiat, again, who a previous commenter already touched on.

    "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

    Just because people are against the ADA, doesn't mean they hate the handicap, or would do everything in their power to exclude the handicap.

    In other words, control freaks, like those on either Left or Right, that perpetually enact byzantine laws, who not only believe Americans are dumb-ass, racist, greedy motherfuckers without morals, that this Nation of people require an entire Encyclopedias worth of laws, in which the State will ultimately throw you in a cage, shoot you (and/or your dog), and regulate your ass out of existence if you don't walk their tight-rope of regulations that are rarely, in a lot of cases (Enron, AIG, BP, etc) enforced on mega-multinational corporations.

    Quite frankly, the American people are capable of a lot more good if government would get the fuck out the way. Yeah, I'm looking at you... FEMA. Way to fuck up on Katrina.

  • Tony||

    Government is the administrator of a society's collective will. It doesn't have to be an all-controlling alien force. That's what the American revolution was sort of about. The mistake here is confusing democratic government with authoritarian government.

    Agreed that FEMA fucked up on its Katrina response. Are you arguing that abolishing FEMA would have resulted in a much better situation? Why does the existence of a government program make it impossible for people to do the charity and community work they would have done otherwise? FEMA exists because it's prudent to have a large-scale disaster-response outfit. Who cares that the government administers it? That's only the case because it's an efficient way to do large-scale disaster-response. FEMA fucked up because the people in charge believed what you believe, that government really shouldn't be doing anything.

  • sarcasmic||

    You said "administrator of a society's collective will" twice.

    I do not accept the premise that there is a such thing as collective will.

  • sarcasmic||

    Why does the existence of a government program make it impossible for people to do the charity and community work they would have done otherwise?

    Impossible? Nobody says that except those who Bastiat would have called "socialists" who confuse society with government.

    Who cares that the government administers it? That's only the case because it's an efficient way to do large-scale disaster-response.

    That's a joke, right? I mean, if you seriously believe that government can do anything more efficiently than a private sector entity that will go out of business if it operates in a perpetual loss, I don't know what to say.

  • Tony||

    sarcasmic,

    Government can do certain things more efficiently than the private sector. Like healthcare. And fighting wars (though wars may be wasteful, soldiers are still cheaper than mercenaries). The things governments traditionally do, they do because they are more efficient. It's pretty simple--one administrator versus many.

    You don't believe in collective will? You gather 5 people in a room and they will form a government of sorts if they want to get things done. Any group of people needs some organizing structure. Where is the line you draw on the spectrum of neighborhood watch to the federal government beyond which government becomes incapable of functioning and oppressive?

  • sarcasmic||

    Government can do certain things more efficiently than the private sector.

    I'm willing to agree to disagree.

  • sarcasmic||

    Any group of people needs some organizing structure.

    Libertarians do not oppose organization, as long as it is voluntary.

  • Tony||

    Libertarians do not oppose organization, as long as it is voluntary.

    So what's not voluntary about a democratic government? The fact that you don't get everything you want all the time? Waah. The same is true for any group of people. Just be glad you have a vote. Most people in history haven't.

  • Ron L||

    Tony|9.2.10 @ 7:56PM|#
    "Government can do certain things more efficiently than the private sector. Like healthcare."
    Cite please.

  • Tncm||

    "Government can do certain things more efficiently than the private sector. Like healthcare. And fighting wars (though wars may be wasteful, soldiers are still cheaper than mercenaries). The things governments traditionally do, they do because they are more efficient. It's pretty simple--one administrator versus many."

    The "advantage" that the government has over a private company is that the government can be as inefficient as it damn well pleases without ever being punished for it. If the government decides to bid up the price of steel by buying shit tons of it, and then just sit on half of it, it can. If the government decides to run a massive deficit and cause hyperinflation to pay for welfare programs, it can. In the end, the government will get your money, either through the hidden tax of inflation or through more visible taxes like the income tax. You are on the hook for all of the government's poor decisions.

    On the other hand, private companies are accountable to their shareholders, and are much more limited in their power. If Corporation A decided to buy one billion pounds of steel for no earthly or profitable reason, then the stock holders of the company could sell their stock and invest their money somewhere else. Not to mention, Corporation A does not have the power to print money to pay for it's poor decision making, or enforce a "tax monopoly" on an entire population. People have explained the difference between the government and private enterprises to you before, so I hope you can grasp the concept now.

    "You don't believe in collective will? You gather 5 people in a room and they will form a government of sorts if they want to get things done. Any group of people needs some organizing structure. Where is the line you draw on the spectrum of neighborhood watch to the federal government beyond which government becomes incapable of functioning and oppressive?"

    A government is not capable of purposeful action; it is not a person. It does not have wants, desires, or thoughts. People in government, however, have wants, desires and thoughts, and are therefore capable of purposeful action. The idea of a collective will is a Marxist idea, and one that is easy to disprove, as I have demonstrated above.

    An organization becomes oppressive when it no longer becomes voluntary, i.e. I can secede from it if I want too. I cannot "secede" from the federal government; I can only move to an area where a different government has a power monopoly on that specific geographical area. Therefore, government as we know it is oppressive by nature. Unless you know of some way, in which case, please enlighten me, 'cause if you do, I'll start packing.

  • Tony||

    Tncm you are free to renounce your citizenship. Yes, you'll likely end up somewhere with a government. That's because governments have proved useful, and who ever said you were entitled to your own private country? There's a limited amount of land on the planet and a lot of people. But you have many more choices in the marketplace of governments than you do in the marketplace of cable companies, so I don't see why you should complain.

  • Tncm||

    Does your stupidity come naturally Tony, or did you take lessons?

    I'm not even sure you're literate in English. Your post implies you either skimmed my post for about one second, or just didn't read it at all. So, I'll explain it to you again.

    "Tncm you are free to renounce your citizenship. Yes, you'll likely end up somewhere with a government. That's because governments have proved useful, and who ever said you were entitled to your own private country? "

    "Entitled"? If government wasn't oppressive, I would be able to take my private property (which I acquired through voluntary trade, mind you), and secede. Does this mean I can make everybody else secede too, to form my own little "private country"? No, of course not. But, and I'll say it one more time, if government was not oppressive people would be able to exit from it's jurisdiction the moment it did something they didn't like. I should be able to leave the jurisdiction of government for the same reason I should be able to leave any private clubs or organizations I'm in; I am a sovereign individual, and the government, or any organization, does not own me or anyone else, including you. Do you understand?

    Of course, if people wanted to stay "with" the United States government, they could. In fact, if the governments of the world knew that their citizens could exit their jurisdiction the moment they screw something up, they'd actually be forced to think things through and make *gasp* educated decisions. I can refer to you a chapter in "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman if you have any questions about how laws and government would work in a voluntarist/anarcho-capitalist society. I don't think you do have any interest, but the offer stands.

    "There's a limited amount of land on the planet and a lot of people."

    Has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said.

    "But you have many more choices in the marketplace of governments than you do in the marketplace of cable companies, so I don't see why you should complain."

    Marketplace of governments? That's laughable. The governments of the world are not private organizations, nor do they behave even remotely like one. See my above post (which it is becoming increasingly obvious that you did not read) to learn more. Your point about cable companies is also irrelevant; I will refer you once again to my previous post so you can see why governments are not like private companies.

    Why do you even come on here if all you do is make the same baseless assertions over and over again?

  • Edwin||

    You can leave this country any time you want, moron

    that you may have trouble going into another country doesn't change that

    and frankly, you are quite free to just leave. There are plenty of places in the middle of nowhere where there are few people, let alone government agents, to bother you, and yet there's still people in genmeral. Try some pacific islands or something.

    You don't even have to do much to avoid hassle with our government. You just say you're out of the country on businesses and only have to check up with the gove like once every six months. It's something easy like that.

  • Tony||

    In other words... shut the fuck up, and do what your government tells you.

    Unless it's a Republican-led government.

  • petulant child||

    But Mommy! He did it first!

  • Tony||

    Wait... it IS okay when I do it. Never mind.

  • MJ||

    "That your inability to park in the closest, bestest parking spot available is a bigger burden, a greater injustice than not being able to fucking walk."

    There's also the problem that the many, many, unused handicapped parking spaces mandated in office parks go totally unused are just wasted space. That means the parking lot must be bigger to accomodate the non-disabled workers who actually need to park their cars.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Not being able to walk is not, in and of itself, an injustice. Just a bummer.

  • ||

    And anyone who doesn't recognize that making someone harder to fire, or more expensive to employ, doesn't act as a drag on their employment, is a goddam idiot.

  • Jim||

    That's not an outcome that we want, therefore it can not occur. I can not let my mind believe this will happen.

  • ||

    such legislation is the culmination of changes that had already been incorporated into the labor market.

    IOW, the moral preening of the supporters of the Total State is completely misplaced; all the social benefits they want to take credit for had already been delivered by the market.

  • DesigNate||

    Do you think the Stache is intentionally doing episodes based on something Penn & Teller did on Bullshit or is it just coincidence?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Kind of a training wheels thing I think.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    NEW SHOW!!!!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    What could go wrong?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    So it was Bush SR. who put the commode in accommodate.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    If the constitution is a living breathing document, it should accommodate those documents which are not able to live and breath. Selfish document!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Stay with us because we're gonna see if a man with three mangled fingers can strangle healthy elderly man or if it just doesn't work.

  • ||

    Dang man you made it...we're over at the Katherine Mangu-Ward/Stossel thread.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Bawbwa doesn't have any twouble talking?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Methy, we're over here.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Fuck yeah Stache make him stop b-b-bulshitting everyone

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Who's stuttering now old man!?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Pony tails are bad for America.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    A deaf patient, a jew and a pollock went to a doctor...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    On second thought, maybe you should stay here.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yeah thanks dickhead-fat-Kenny-Rodgers-wanna-be-lawyer-fuck

  • Odd Barker||

    An MIT study found that employment of disabled men ages 21 to 58 declined after the ADA went into effect. Same for women ages 21 to 39.

    POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC!

  • Dave||

    I work in construction, and I can assure you that Stossel is right about the ADA causing businesses to cut back on renovations - or, alternately, to renovate in a series of small steps that won't trigger the law - despite the fact that it is MUCH more expensive and inconvenient to make the many small steps than just to renovate everything at once. The ADA is a huge hassle and increases the costs for *everyone*.

    While I would't have a big problem with requiring "reasonable accommodations" if they were actually reasonable, the fact is that most of these accommodations are *not* reasonable.

    I actually know of one building recently constructed where a great deal of expense went to constructing a wheelchair ramp *to exit stairs*. That's the only thing the ramp goes to - the stairs!

    I would have no problem with an obscure government agency publishing a pamphlet with recommended guidelines for how to build a wheelchair-accessible toilet, for example, but that should be the extent of it. Most people will make "reasonable accommodations" on their own - we don't need another excuse to impose large costs on everyone for no good reason.

  • ||

    Tell me. At the ADA convention, must they provide those choice, up-front parking spots for those of us that can fucking walk? Who do I sue if they don't?

  • Daniel Garcia||

    Would you tale thiS FOXY news person that the ADA protect business by people like him who critized the ADA for not hiring people. I would say again the real issue is in the cap of 5.000 per lawsuit in comparison with the civil right race, age and sexual discrimination where there is no cap whatsoever and is up to jury... to determine how much money should the person be awarded and not a piece of legislator
    The ADA is weak because of that limited cap that congress put to save business from potential lawsuit.
    Futhermore this FOXY news analysis doesn't really match with civil the right and ADA because if business are hiring less people with disabilities because of lawsuit then no wonder why there is more white then african american in the workplace. Specially when you are working Fox Channel.

  • pallas||

    My problem with the ADA is that it pits one problem against another. As a normally "abled" person with severe allergies and asthma, I need to avoid cute, furry animals. Anyone who can get a doctor to say they need a therapy dog to fly with them to Granma's funeral can cause me to miss my Granma's funeral since I can get on the flight and risk hospitalization or wait for the next flight. No one cares if I have note from my doc that says I can't be in a confined space with animal dander.

  • bigargon||

    I work with people with disabilities. ADA has been a great law, for the disabled.It makes regular activities that most people enjoy, like eating at a restaurant, going to a movie, living in a house, rather then an institution a reality. Most people take these for granted. It not just about "who is working". It also about people with disabilities having a good life. How would you feel, if you were Quadriplegic (which could happen to any us) and could never go to a movie or restaurant , because there was no way to bring in your wheelchair. No doubt there are some abuses , but for many people this gives them a chance to participate in life.

  • Jales||

    Take people allergic to dairy. No one had to legislate soy milk into existence. Some smart person found the market and sunk his teeth into it and voila..people allergic to dairy had an option. Until then, they just couldn't drink milk and had to deal because it was THEIR problem, not ours.

    As a person with asthma and going deaf, at no point have I asked anyone to accommodate MY problems. My problems are MINE and I don't see why everyone has to live under my onus in order to make me happy.

    WOULD it be easier if we required EVERYONE to learn my particular brand of sign language so that I could talk to whoever I wanted whenever I wished? Yes. Is it fair to force you to pay for the course, take the time of your life, JUST so IF me or one of my friends approach you you can "help us be a part of life"? How about forcing employers to make sure every employee knows sign language and pays for those that don't to learn it?

    I accept that I have to make adjustments and will not be able to do the same things I used to. Does it suck? YES. Do I have the right to expect others to bow to my loss in order for me to be "happy"? Maybe I should do what I'm doing and find other ways to appreciate life and just deal with the fact that I have to carry a notepad around...

    I have a good life because I deal with my disability, not because I make others deal with it.

  • ||

    Dear Everyone The ADA help me thought out my life and the jobs I have. Before ADA I did not have job in the community. I was at workshop program only make 50 cents hour. From 1983 to 1986 work part time. I am person with I use the old word then better understand were come from mental retardation or other word hate is handicap or the disabled. Atfer high school 1986 I work there full time only 50 cents hour we still have programs across country. A year later I move into 12 bed group-home. I did not much freedom only time. I go my church across street. The only be alone is my friends at my church. Until I discover support group call self advocacy and fine single group this first time see as james not labled on too me. I change my voting card address. I know could go county place to voting card. I met a new friend Michelle at self advocacy meeting lose her phone number in the fall 1989 I saw her at county fair then start take me the meetings also start become system advocacy also be on The Arc of Tulsa board. I was first person with disabilities. Then her amd my friends at single group think could work in community. My first job was wash dish but it was not for me because my boss treat me so bad because she thought all people with disabilities the same I was different the person before me have some major issue but she canot see that I was at time only get SSI check also during time at workshop also get SSI check. During that time I start voluntee my time at The Arc of Tulsa and start speak my mind in Oklahoma city to make community support better in community and put more money for job coach to help me and other people like me get jobs in community not be hid from the outside world. In spring 1991 I went two place for job. The first place is foodshopping place. Something in my gut I did feel right about got job offere there then second place. The clother store feel good about the workers treat me like team player and the boss. The boss told me could get job in June. The foodshopping open in April I choice clother store. I wait June it was best choice I make at time. I remember the things help me to do list which day I going do what. This help me do this job. In 1992 at superbowl party. I tell my friends at single. I want move a new place to live guess what the did the help me fine place 3 weeks later I have my own place Since 1992 I been own place. At time I get small SSI check at same time I become more like system advocate because I was persident state wide self advocacy group in oklahoma. During time off from work. I speak to lawmakers how we need services better also same travel across oklahoma start local self advocacy get home late night but the next day I could call in but get there 7:30 monday thought saturday my long days Monday thought tuesday 730 AM to 500 PM sometimes work on Wed. I do everything in store be ready. The only thing did not work cashbox. I have no problem with that. In 1995 I have job offere work for The Arc of Tulsa. Before leave clother store as my boss would have another person with disabilities take my place he say yes. I trainner train him do my job. In 1995 while was work at The Arc of Tulsa. Gone washington DC as key noter speaker JFK JR and other key people from DC. The have small group people of Louisiana the as me I would be move to Louisiana. I thought was joking a year later call speak in Louisiana at meeting as keynoter speaker. The as me again. I told them the were pull my leg. The really want me. Give me one month think about it. A month later yes. But told them wait feb 97 the say could wait. The got everything ready. For me I need look for place live. I work The Arc of Louisiana 9 years during become national persident of self advocacy group. 2003 I move to Texas work The Arc of Texas for 3 years.In 1994 until 2002 I was on the national self advocacy group. I got job offere doing system advocacy and self advocacy other advocacy work. This job now I do speak different group and to make system better in Texas. With out ADA. I do not having device help me write letters or put speech together. To have someone write notes at meetings. Is hard speak on issue and try kept what people say at meetings. Since 1997 to today have no SSI check. I make great money to pay my bills and the foods I like and also go my favor sport bar hang out my friends and drink my favor drink. The ADA also help me other area too. I do not wamt share it. Look back 1986 grad from high school making only 50 cents hour To year **,***. All stuff I do it on my own without my dad and my step-mom help. Since 1990 to today my dad and step-mom the want me still live in group-home and workshop also get SSI check even the are the Far Right and me I am far left. The last thing treat as adults not think of kids like do not path head
    I may mispell some words or may forget some little words. It my choice talking problem to show we are human like everyone else

  • ||

    I know friends who use wheel chair. Really want go front door. The want be in part of the community not be welcome walk with the friends. You feel something different of you. It really stand out.Would you as other races go back door if you do not feel good about person. Look at christopher reeve who did not having disabilities. Then one day become person with disabilities. We just be in part of community. I have friends who have services dogs. Is not pet. The are working to help person with disabilities to go places. All them have sign do not pat me. I am working. Like one day have to go meeting is second floor but different offices how get to meeting. I know in fact were work we have four park sports for people with disabilities is already full one is my co-worker Sarah and The other one is me and sarah big boss Mary the have other two from other business. We want fit in community not be hide away. It also having other people with disabilities in different areas.

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • cheap ugg boots||

    good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement