The Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed

Con argues that if any shared sacrifice --code for Federal rule-- is justified, then the government is justified in forcing the individual to do anything it considers necessary for the common good. Laws should be limited to the minimum necessary. Perhaps a draft was justified in WWII, but we have decided that it ought not be used if not absolutely necessary. Objections to the ADA are that it is a Federal law that works through intimidation upon individuals. We do not have Federal laws that allow orphans to sue Bill Gates to force him to personally build an orphanage. The ADA does not put the burden of expenditures on all taxpayers, it is mainly is system for extracting payoffs from small businesses. Before the ADA we did not have Federal building codes imposed upon individuals. Building codes are voted by localities; ADA has a Federal bureaucracy generating endless specific rules, and it allows lawsuits for situations not covered by specific rules. Localities worry about costs; the Feds do not. Con asserts, in effect, "Democracy is the right of the 51% to pee on the cornflakes of the 49%." Under ADA, nearly everyone qualifies as disabled. A business owners livelihood can be completely destroyed by ADA. Since business owners are a minority, the majority does not care if the cumulative regulatory burden kills them. I' arguing that society does not benefit from that approach. If society democratically votes to spend enormous sums on benefits for any group, the burden should be shared by all taxpayers. Societies cannot flourish when the primary concern must be complying with government rules. There is no possibility of an individual ever knowing all the ADA rules. ADA promotes exclusion by making every handicapped person a “lawsuit bomb.” Racial equality, being a “do not,” costs nothing. ADA requires considerable expense, without any weighing of costs and benefits. It requires motel owners to put elevators in swimming pools, no matter the cost. Having an attendant assist handicapped people is unacceptable, period. Con says that anyone should be forced out of business if they cannot comply. I think localities should permit other reasonable accommodation, like having an attendant. How does closing a small town's only motel benefit anyone? The handicapped cannot use the pool and no one has a place to stay. Building codes are voted locally, so a locality can decide they would prefer to be able to afford a public facility even if the swimming pool doesn't have an elevator. ADA is absolute and arbitrary. Excessive litigation No, it's a Federal law and individuals can always sue. They can also go to the EEOC and file a complaint, in which case the taxpayer shoulders the plaintiffs costs, while the business owner gets to fight the Federal government at his own expense. Over 100,000 lawsuits have been initiated under ADA. A mirror 2 inches too high is real, punishable violation with no grounds for avoiding a $4K fine. Did handicapped people really starve before ADA, because they could shop for food? I think most business owners would respond to a voluntary certification process for access. Those who do not would lose business not only from handicapped people, but fro sympathetic shoppers. Outrage is producing some modification to enforcement, but it's still mysterious rules with $4K fines. Lawyers will adapt. Localities should be entirely responsible, so they can choose to escape Big Brother. If defendants win 97% of cases, that means that the law works by intimidation. Very few people can afford to take cases to courts, so they pay to settle. The 2010 law broadened the definition of disability in order to ensure more convictions. Individual lawyers can be blocked at enormous expense by defendants, but that just makes room for another lawyer to clean up until he encounters a defendant with enough money to block him, So if a business owner cannot afford to retrofit a swimming pool with an elevator, he should just shut down? Localities adopt building codes and worry a great deal about making them so onerous that they shut down business. The Feds have no such concern, and the ADA says so. Hiring 1. So? I didn't argue otherwise. 2. The point of the Exxon case is that the ADA sets up a conflict by requiring that safety-related hiring issues not be raised with an employee,. Other laws require that the questions be asked. The head of ADA enforcement affirmed the questions could not be asked. The courts ruled in Exxon's favor, but the employer will always violate one law or the other, and it will always be up to the courts to resolve. Repealing ADA removes the conflict in favor of safety and common sense. Employment 1 My source surveyed all the studies of the effect of ADA on hiring. The overwhelming consensus was that it hurt handicapped hiring. Con found one study under one set of circumstances where results were “mixed.” Con concedes no studies show improvement, despite high bureaucratic burdens and lawsuits. 2. Con found a study rationalizing the drop in hiring, but the consensus remains. Con's Case 1. Con sites an unsupported opinion that the ADA is wonderful. It isn't. Unreasonable rules are enforced by intimidation, and that hurts everyone. 2. I agree that supporting reasonable accommodation is worthwhile. The debate is about whether unreasonable Federal dictates and intimidation is the best way to accomplish the goals. It's not. 3. Tens of thousands of people filed lawsuits, and Con equates that with success. Now that virtually everyone qualifies as disabled, will more lawsuits mean more success? Employers will make reasonable accommodations without lawsuits; harassment is not success. 4. Are the flaws in the North Korean system of government merely a challenge to do better? I accept that people who believe in government regulation believe that authoritarian central control is a good thing. In practice, what really produces positive results is local control where the bad effects are appreciated rather than ignored. 5. Laws are not justified by feelings of moral commitment. We shouldn't care if authoritarian rulers believe they know what is best. 6. Repeal signals an end to arbitrary rule in which costs are ignored and handicapped people are viewed as lawsuit time bombs. Repeal forces localities to decide what is reasonable. Respect and concern for the handicapped will increase. 7. There should not be any Federal law replacing the ADA. States and localities should exclusively deal with the issue. California has many Big Brother laws. 3.4 million people have left the state. That's fair. Con's Counter Plan Con's Counter plan admits the deep flaws in the ADA. It amounts to a repeal and replacement, as I anticipated in the challenge. It effectively concedes the resolution. It shows the defect in the thinking that wants Federal legislation to solve every problem. The flaw remains in which the Feds get it wrong, but the Feds do not suffer the adverse effects acutely. If changes ever come, they are inadequate. Congress delegates rule making to bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats are never fired for getting it wrong. Tax incentives for making expensive retrofits at best only shifts pat of the burden to the public. It should be a line item in the Federal budget so law makers get to sign up explicitly for the cost of banning door knobs, and they get to justify the expense to their constituents. Besides, tax incentive only apply to companies making profits greater than the required ADA expenditures. Those who do not are put out of business. Moreover, localities building public buildings are required to obey the wildly complex ADA regulations. The extra expense can delay or prevent construction of the facility. The ADA should be repealed. It hurts the disabled by making them less employable, by hurting the economy that provides employment and services, and by improperly associating disabled people with foolish and expensive mandates.