Accessibility at Gunpoint!

[Levilprivateer]

Slutty_Eddie

How is a hospital, a private business(actually a non-profit corporation), refusing treatment because you wear nikes different than a builder who refuses to repair your house because you wear nikes?

I believe the item on the table was not treatment in the general sense, but the Jimi Hendrix "could have saved his life" treatment. If we're talking about getting a boil lanced or getting some minor surgery done, then a hospital has every right to refuse you service. However, you are correct. In a perfect world, a hospital would not be required to offer you lifesaving service. I tend to think that most hospitals would offer that service though, as the public opinion is necessary for thier continued operation.

The difference of course, is severity. You will not die if you don't get home repairs done immediately. While you may die if you do not receive treatment, the hospital is under no obligation to treat you. Luckily for us, they tend to treat first and ask questions later.

Quote:

They're offering a service and, according to you, you don't have a right to that service.

That is correct in both cases.

Quote:

I have a portal wheelchair ramp, although it takes an hour of my time to set up. A cripple in a wheelchair could not access my basement, but it's all storage, the first floor offers seperate but equal accomidations.

Incorrect. By your assertion, opening a store for green people and purple people would be okay, as long as they stocked similar items. Under the original discussion, the terms were not "offer a comparable webpage", the terms were "all webpages must be compatible." Therefore, all of your rooms, using the logic of that law, should be accessible including the basement.

Quote:

My house is not open to the public, so it's a bit different to a buisness that is.

Quote:

A private buisness takes advantage of the community it's in to make a profit. Without a community. it's not going very far, since selling to yourself does not equal a profit. I believe failing to accomidate parts of the community you live in simply being an Indian giver. I believe that a set of standards to allow the community to access a business is a good thing, because it takes the guesswork out of knowing how to accomplish that task. A pseudo-hamarabi's code. Like Hamaribi's code, it should be easy to understand, too many regulations is just as bad as too few.

Your premise may be sound... the business benefits from the community.. but you've oversimplified the issue and you left out some key components. Yes, any business, by virtue of the fact that it makes a profit, benefits from the community. However, you fail to mention that the community also benefits from the presence of a business, and thus, the scales are just about equal when it comes to give and take. In addition, you fail to realize that simple economic behavior provides many checks and balances on a business. Is a restaurant's food substandard? People tell other people and the restaurant loses business. Does a business not sell what people want? Well then, no sales are made. Finally... does an unaccomodating businessperson lose business if people disagree with his behavior? Yes. The business loses customers by not accomodating to the customers' needs.

I believe that about half of the world's problems stem from legislation that hinders personal responsibility and natural behavior. The tendency to legislate everything makes everyone less responsible and makes the world a worse place to live. Why make a law telling someone what do do with thier own property? Why not give the consumers the choice to patronize or not patronize a business instead of forcing misguided mandates down everyone's throats?

Quote:

I also believe we are semi-interconnected. I can't make my own dryer, I can't make my own shoes, I would look silly in a suit I made and I would be cold in the house I built.

My hotdog tree is the end of my farming career.

I am a slave to the businesses in my area, I don't deny it. If a third of them refused to sell me things tomorrow, I would probably have to move to someplace that does and give up everything I've worked for.

And this is thier fault? Just because you depend on a service does not mean that the provider of that service is responsible for your welfare.

Quote:

I live with it, two roomies with blindness and physical handicaps. We don't expect the @^%$ government to do things, we make our own accessibility...

Good! That's the way it is supposed to work.

Quote:

Not quite. I'm advocating that government limit itself to providing a few incentives and perhaps publishing a standard, but not trying to get forceful about it. Folks like www.freedomscientific.com, www.gwmicro.com, www.blindsoftware.com, www.bavisoft.com, and www.scansoft.com have a prime opportunity to profit and lead the accessibility trend. Microsoft has done rather well in making Windows affordably accessible.

I generally agree, but I am wary of incentives. Incentives in the form of "we will give preference when government contracts are available" is fine, but "we'll give away taxpayer dollars to a cause some people may not support" is not.

[Slutty_Eddie]

[Levilprivateer]

Slutty_Eddie

That is incorrect. How does one make a compatible image? A description is nice, but it will never be exactly the same. How would someone make a blind compatible version of Homestarrunner.com? Just like the BAM instances, there HAS to be a seperate but equal, because there will always be inconsistances with access.

Your analogy is inconsistent. You're arguing that the blind person's disability reflects unequal access, but you're also arguing that maintaining seperate rooms is a proper analogy of the situation. Let me point out, however, that offering access to a room does not cure blindness... your guest cannot, for example, appreciate your excellent sense of decor... but you would have to make all rooms accessible. Similarly, I don;t have to make concessions under the law to make the impossible possible on my webpages, but I am required (or would be, were I British) to retrofit my page to be accessible.

Quote:

And this is thier fault? Just because you depend on a service does not mean that the provider of that service is responsible for your welfare.

It's not their fault, it's their power over me that I need protection from.

I disagree. Thier power over you exists because you let it exist. Were there an absolute monopoly on washing machines or electricity, I could see your point... but as most every business must compete for service, you have the power, not the businesses.

Quote:

The morages were set up like they were now, so that a few bad years would cause you to lose your property. Such 100% legal scams turned a generation of land owners into a generation of renters and for many of them, a generation of homeless.

I need protection against s**t like that.

Might I suggest not putting all of your eggs in one basket, then? Investment, intelligent money management, and realistic expectations are excellent protections against foreclosure. Whle bad luck does exist, smart money management does a lot to dull the blade of a bad year.

Quote:

Because by nature, a business will not work in our best interest and by nature, people don't work for their best interests either. Caveat Emptor is not personal responsibility.

By definition, you do not work in my best interests either. Should the government be allowed to force you to be accomodating and polite to me? Should the government force you to provide a service you are unwilling to provide?

Quote:

People spend themselves into debt via credit cards and credit card companies issues credit cards to dogs. Neither one shows personal responsibility, but under your system, it would be the right of the credit card company to do what they wanted with their property. (Actually, if your dog gets a credit card, you can be sued for fraud.)

People should learn responsibility. Allowing people to do something foolish like spend themselves into poverty is an excellent teacher. I would know.

As far as issuing credit cards to dogs... you do realize that you have to fill out the forms for your dog... which is, incidentally, your property... before you can be sued, correct? Filling out the form would be fraud, yes.

Quote:

Or even back to the example of our black family whose apartment was condemmed. It was the personal responsibility for the apartment owner to keep up his apartments, which he should have lost, but the damage is done to family out in the street. It wasn't their personal responsibility to maintain their apartment, but they pay for it anyways.

However, it was thier choice to live there. If the landowner was deficient in upholing his contract with the family, then they would have legal recourse. There's the check on that system... a personal, enforcable contract.

Quote:

Personal responsibility will well works for equals, but fails poorly when the tables are unbalanced.

Life teaches that ALL tables are unbalanced. You're dealt a hand of cards and you're often at a disadvantage. You have to play what you are dealt, though... and work at getting better cards. As far as personal responsibility goes, it NEVER fails. You may not get what you want, but being personally responsible will always succeed... as you'll know who to look to for both success and failure.