The Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed

Thanks to Con for a vigorous debate. People with arthritis can have trouble grasping a door knob. So is the solution to form a Federal bureaucracy with the power to ban door knobs? To affirm the ADA approach one must believe that nearly all problems are Federal problems, that no measure of reasonableness or cost should intrude upon Federal edicts. Disabled people should receive reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. The ADA harms disabled people by identifying disabled people as a source of harassment and as “lawsuit time bombs.” Hiring of disabled people has dropped as a result. The is no cost limit on facility modifications, and a irresponsible bureaucracy makes unreasonable rules. Killing and inhibiting small businesses and making government facilities unaffordable harms both disabled people and the public at large. A voluntary program of certification would be more effective, or if government is involved it should be at a local level so that government can be held accountable for reasonable and appropriate rule making. Con implies that if some “forced sacrifice” is justified, then the degree of sacrifice is a minor issue. No, damaging A's livelihood, to the point out of putting him out business for the claimed benefit of B is immoral. A justice system and a military are vital to national survival, but banning doorknobs and putting elevators in swimming pools is not. I did not concede that building codes are moral; I asserted that if there are building codes, they ought to be local. I made clear the differences between a Federal building code and local ones: (1) local government must be responsive to local economics while a Federal bureaucracy is immune to local concerns, (2) local governments enact rules directly, while the Federal bureaucracy making ADA rules is not elected; and rules should reflect local conditions and concerns. (For example, an urban area may be best served by equipping all public buses with wheel chair lifts, while a rural area may be much better served by an on-call taxi van.) Con ignored these differences. Huh? I argued that only large corporations (like Exxon) can afford to fight the government, so the ADA's main mechanism for enforcement is intimidation. Big business only fights cases they can win. The main reason for the government losing cases was the definition of “disabled,” so the 2010 fixed that by classifying nearly everyone as disabled. The head of the EEOC could not figure out what was compliant, so it's ridiculous to suppose a small business can figure it out. I can't parse Con's debate jargon. I'm guessing it's the (1) argument again, answered above. Pro argues that inclusion should have no bounds on cost or reasonableness. That's an absolutist argument, which he otherwise abhors. He also fails to recognize the distinction of taxing everyone to pay for benefits going to a few people and demanding that one individual provide costly benefits directly to another. We tax Bill Gates according a tax code that considers his wealthy status, while the ADA targets businesses losing money exactly the same as the rich corporations. Excessive Litigation Con points to the hundred thousand lawsuits filed under the ADA as proof that the legislation is a success, but then he argues that the litigation is not excessive. Building codes are enforced by a government inspector. The ADA enforcement is based upon harassment and intimidation. Remember, the head of the EEOC couldn't say in a simple case what was legal and illegal under the law. The sheer volume of rules eliminates the possibility of a small business applying them without expensive expert help. The California case is instructive. Con is right that the $4K per violation mechanism of local enforcement in California was repealed. Even regulation-obsessed California was forced to back off due to local pressure,. The bureaucrats making ADA rules are completely immune from the adverse consequences. of their edicts. Con points out that lawyers suing under the Federal legislation can only recover their fees. Collecting fees is the ordinary way that lawyers prosper. Lawyers have in fact been inspired to file a hundred thousand lawsuits. Handicapped people bought food before the ADA was passed. Supermarkets have always had good access. With few exceptions, small markets usually have staff that's willing to help. I'll grant that not every store was perfectly accessible, but all consumers go to the places that provide the service they want. For example, many people have food allergies that require them to shop at stores that serve them. Short people cannot reach high shelves, yet society survives. (Hmm, maybe height should be a disability. Oh, and tall people can bump their heads.) Con's “inclusive society” argument is what I call a Delta House Argument. In the movie Animal House, a fraternity is threatened with expulsion for hosting drunken orgies. (see video for amusement) The line of argument is: “You can't attack our fraternity without attacking the fraternity system. You can't attack the fraternity system without attacking the education system. You can't attack the education system without attacking America. Well, I'm not going to stand here while you attack America!” http://www.youtube.com... The inclusive society argument is a preposterous overreach; Society does not depend on bureaucrats banning door knobs. Authoritarian uniformity does not equate to inclusiveness. Employment and Hiring If at best there is only a limited benefit to a subset of the disbled, and the disadvantage is lawsuit harassment, then the law should be repealed. Con has no data showing when hiring was achieved by merit rather than purely by intimidation. The government offers a company the alternative of hiring X as they demand, or suffering the full force of government legal attack. The raw numbers show employment of the disabled decreased. Only academic rationalizations can make down become up. The underlying reasons for not hiring disabled people under ADA remain. The tens of thousands of lawsuits show hiring to be a risk. Con concedes that the government has lost a very high percentage of cases when the defendant can afford to challenge them. Con did not dispute that under the 2010 revision, nearly every employee meets the definition of “disabled,” ushering in a new era of harassing litigation. Con says that if the ADA is repealed, disabled people will have no remedy for unjust discrimination. That's wrong for the basic reason that there is a market for skills. Removing litigation fears promotes free market hiring. Moreover, states and localities can pass laws as they see fit. Con did not contest that over-regulation is detrimental to the economy, Nothing promotes hiring like a strong need for employees. Con's Counter Plan Con's counter plan does not solve any of the cited defects of having a Federal bureaucracy replace local government: lack of cost/benefit concerns, enforcement by lawsuit intimidation, and isolation of bureaucrats from consequences. Con never explained how tax incentives would help businesses who pay no taxes because they are losing money. Con said it was okay to put a business under if they could not pay whatever the rules demand, and that is preferred. Any Federal law is contrary to the principle that local government best responds to local concerns and conditions. The Debate Con complains that he had to research the references. Sure, it's a complicated subject. I object to having to parse Con's jargon-filled and abbreviated arguments. A fluid exposition would have taken him twice the character count. The two basic issues of the debate are (1) Is helping the disabled a job for a Federal bureaucracy immune from consequences? and (2) If taxpayers want to devote resources to solving a problem, shouldn't they get the bill for it? Fairness and effectiveness demand that the ADA be repealed.