This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well in both cases the government is putting an obligation on the entity right? To stick to a contract or to make accommodations for those with disabilities. The government puts lots of obligations on entities. Paying taxes, environmental regulations etc.
Like I say, if you think the government should not put obligations on entities at all, then that is a consistent position. But the government should, but it should farm that out at some rate per person and then leave it up to those people to coordinate against larger entities is just missing the point the government is there to be the coordinator in the first place. There is no point in that halfway house.
Either have the government coordinate it, or not at all, but having it collect all the tax money up, disburse it to individuals then make them coordinate action is just adding additional steps to the process.
A company would be expected to have contracts, and would commit itself to some method of enforcing them, even in the absence of government interference; this isn't true for the ADA. It's the difference between the government enforcing better coordination on something that would exist regarelsss of the government's presence, and the government enforcing something that it imposed on its own.
Your framing is that the government's major role is to coordinate an existing transaction. That would be true in an actual contract; that would be false for the ADA.
If the government said that Bill Gates had to bow down to me, it would be misleading to describe that as "the government is there to coordinate what you and Bill Gates do" or to say "the government is just letting you negotiate with Gates, who's less powerful than a government but more powerful than a normal person".
Leave aside whether the government should do A or B, I am saying ONCE we decide A or B, then it's inefficient to have it coordinate one part (gathering the resources) but leaving it up to individuals to target the entity.
The advantage of government is coordination, so making it half coordinated and half not is wasting the advantage it gives you.
As I said, there is absolutely an argument that the government should not coordinate ADA stuff at all. But once we decide it should, the making each person have to target the resources individually and thus coordinate if they want to push against a bigger entity is just wasting the leverage.
That allows you to characterize the act any way you want just by dividing it up into steps and saying "leaving aside the first step...."
You can't separate whether the government should do A or B from the government's role in the transaction of which A/B are a part.
Well we can if we are just look at how efficient solutions might be as per the OP. I completely accept that some (many?) people do not think the government should do a lot of things, and that is a reasonable position to hold!
But if it IS doing a thing (like the ADA currently), then presumably we can still explore what would be more or less effective, even if we stipulate that you might not think it should be doing that thing in the first place? I mean it's all hypothetical anyway, unless one of us is secretly in the Cabinet, then we are not going to be impacting whether the thing happens nor how it happens. So a hypothetical discussion with the stipulation that discussing the how doesn't mean you are endorsing the should, doesn't seem too unreasonable?
But I don't think the government should not be doing that thing. (Defined nontrivially.)
Helping disabled people isn't bad. The problem is that doing so through lawsuits creates problems that don't happen when the government just taxes people and pays businesses $X to have disabled accommodations.
I agree! I don't think the current format is good, and I don't think OP's version of having individials have to negotiate with companies with their own budget is either.
Functionally though what is the difference between paying a company to do x or fining a company of it doesn't do x?
In the first case the company raises prices to cover the cost of X and its customers will end up paying for it, in the latter taxpayers pay for it ( some of whom may or may not be customers).
So I suppose the question is who should be on the hook for paying? Customers at least in theory have a chance of benefitting from X more individually than taxpayers most of which may well live hundreds of miles away from said business. However in taxpayers the cost is distributed across more people so probably feels like it costs less. Though that might count as hiding the cost I suppose.
As it stands we do both I guess, companies can get grants to make adaptions, and can get sued if they don't. So maybe thats the answer, a mix of both depending on the situation. Make funds available and directly fine companies that refuse anyway.
Paying it is limited by budget. Unfunded mandates aren't. This prevents many abuses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link