Misuse Solution
by Mr. Ogre on Nov 29, 2010 at 15:13 Political
So, have you read about the horrible crimes being committed in Ohio? Apparently, to the shock of many, people are misusing handicapped placards. Oh, the humanity! And there are victims, too — one woman almost didn’t get to go Christmas shopping because she couldn’t find a handicapped parking space! Hundreds of people are making, prepare yourself, fake signs to park in handicapped spots! This is horrible, and it needs to be stopped.
Of course, the simplest solution, the easiest solution, the cheapest solution, and by far the best solution, will never be tried. You see, the best solution is freedom.
How? Simple — get rid of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and let people be free.
Right now, we are paying millions of dollars for administrators to make rules and determine who gets these placards. We’re paying millions for others to enforce these rules and ensure that people don’t use them incorrectly. We’re paying millions for inspectors to make sure each business has the correct number of parking spaces and other accommodations in place, and to fine people who do not comply. And there’s millions in the court systems, enforcing these arbitrary rules and regulations and fines.
Could we try freedom?
How about letting each and every business decide for themselves how they will cater to the handicapped? Wouldn’t it be neat to allow the free market to create businesses and market solutions? If you honestly believe that if the ADA disappeared that all businesses would immediately ignore the handicapped, you’re quite ignorant of how the free market works. Just imagine if each business decided where and how handicapped parking would work, instead of a mass, one-size-fits-all solution. Let each private business decide how to punish those who park in their own parking spaces and make their own rules. Don’t like how one business manages their spots? Then just go to another business.
Freedom, what a concept!
If the federal government hadn’t massively overstepped its constitutional limitations in creating the ADA, then this new problem wouldn’t even BE a problem. Once again, government causes a problem and people actually believe that more government can be the solution. Instead of spending millions of dollars searching for people who park in the “wrong” parking spot, let’s save some money and let freedom ring: completely repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: americans with disabilities, handicapped parking
This happens all the time. I always see cars in handicapped spaces that don’t have license plates or placards for parking there. I also think they are people who get permits when they don’t need them. In the shopping centers down here I have seen officers giving tickets.
When I was in the south they had a way of handling these things. There were handicapped signs for parking with the little wheelchair logo and then signs underneath read: If you ain’t handicapped when you park here you will be when you leave.
Nuff said…
When you say we are spending millions where do you get that number from?
When does the government NOT SPEND MILLIONS?
They spend that much and more to protect a genetic pool of 500 rare salmon- a genetic pool that is too small to sustain the breeding challenges- and yet there go 700 million of your money- and my money too. all for a guaranteed losing cause. Talk about a lack of intelligence.
About as bad as the turtle tunnels.
Give me an exact number that is spent, or you’re lying.
Heh, sorry. I got carried away. I figured I could provide you with information and links, which you would then claim are false, then you would provide links which you claim are “better” than my links, then I could explain even $1 that’s being spent this way is too much, and the dollar amount is clearly NOT the point of this post at all, then you fall back on calling me names and claim I’m a liar because I can’t produce an exact dollar amount that matches your personal links and the exact round figure I posted.
So, sorry, just thought I’d skip all that and go right to the name-calling. It was quicker.
I’m not asking for an exact figure but it would be nice to know that when you say “millions” you’re actually basing that on something verifiable.
The ADA is not without flaws but it is also much more than simply about handicap spaces and their enforcement. To suggest the free market would handle this correctly puts a faith in them that is frankly unsupported by history. Given that about 85% of people have no disability whatsoever I find it very hard to believe that so many institutions would be willing to spend money to make it easier on the other 15%.
Oh, why not. I’ll explain yet again:
The dollar amount is utterly and completely irrelevant! This is my tax money being spent on a useless process. If they’re only spending $1, it’s more than should be spent, because I worked to earn that $1, and government should not take that money from me to operate such an insane system.
The ADA is much more than parking spaces — and most of it is just as useless. In addition, it is completely unconstitutional.
Also, I’ll state once again: “If you honestly believe that if the ADA disappeared that all businesses would immediately ignore the handicapped, you’re quite ignorant of how the free market works.”
“The dollar amount is utterly and completely irrelevant!”
Then why throw around figures you can’t back up? You always cite mind boggling figures and then when questioned fall back on this argument. Next time you should start at that point instead of having to retreat to it. It’s much more interesting when all sides argue within the bounds of verifiable facts and figures.
“In addition, it is completely unconstitutional.”
The SCOTUS has decided interpretation of parts of the ADA were indeed unconstitutional but they do not agree with you that it is “completely unconstitutional.”
“If you honestly believe that if the ADA disappeared that all businesses would immediately ignore the handicapped, you’re quite ignorant of how the free market works.”
That is a faulty argument. Of course all businesses would not ignore them, but how many would? If you think the mythical “free market” as a whole gives a damn about persons with disabilities you’re kidding yourself. You’d have to assume the ADA came about because of a meddling government instead of the reality which is that the ADA came about to fix a problem the free market was not taking care of.
“Of course all businesses would not ignore them, but how many would?”
Welcome to the wonderful concept of freedom! What an awesome concept! Imagine, if you can, people free to cater to the handicapped. What a great thing that would be. People free to help one another. Gosh, that would be awesome.
So is this limited to the disabled or to all aspects of civil rights? Do we scale back protections against gender and racial discrimination as well all in the name of the wonderful concept of freedom?
We already have laws against discrimination so why do there have to be special classes? It is against the law to discriminate unless you are using affirmative action, then it is OK.
I’m not sure I see your point. Our laws don’t setup a generic definition of discrimination and make it illegal. We’ve had to increase the circle to identify discrimination against different groups over the years starting with race, gender, disabilities, and more recently sexual orientation. It’s the same way with hate crimes.
How do you prove the intent of hate? Is it a crime to assault someone? If so then why is it a “hate” crime if a white guy assaults a black guy? Why is it a hate crime if he assaults him specifically because he is black? If assault is a crime then prosecute him for assault.
Why is it that non whites are not prosecuted for hate crimes against whites? The NBPP people at the Philly polls should have been charged with a hate crime because they were specifically targeting white people.
A crime is a crime.
“increase the circle to identify discrimination against different groups”
Welcome to the politics of the left. Everything is defined by groups. See, I like freedom. I like to let people define themselves and their own groups. The left does not like this, as the left needs groups to be at war with one another to succeed.
And yes, hate crimes are thought crimes, and are total crap. They are based on punishing people for bothering special classes — also part of the left’s plan to divide people as much, and as often, as possible.
Sorry. Groups exist regardless and they aren’t a liberal conspiracy to create conflict.
And keeping them in conflict is how the left operates.
I knew I shouldn’t have brought up hate crimes. It’s a simple as can be but for some reason people see the need to say so many silly and untrue things about hate crimes. Let’s survey arguments from Big Dog and Ogre:
“And yes, hate crimes are thought crimes, and are total crap.”
No. Something closer to a thought crime is when European morons make it illegal to deny the Holocaust happened. We’re talking about actual crimes where hate is a motive. We are not talking about hate itself being a crime.
“How do you prove the intent of hate?”
Same way as with other crimes. Collect and survey evidence and establish motives.
“If so then why is it a ‘hate’ crime if a white guy assaults a black guy?”
A crime committed by a white person against a black person is not automatically a hate crime. That is a myth.
“If assault is a crime then prosecute him for assault.”
This is the same reason when you cause the death of some one the legal system considers why it happened. Did you intend to kill the person? Was it negligent homicide? Was it manslaughter? What was your state of mind at the time? Why are making distinctions in reason and motive alright for some crimes but inserting bias into the equation somehow crosses the line?
“Why is it that non whites are not prosecuted for hate crimes against whites?”
The truth is they are. The FBI keeps statistics on hate crimes and they contain documentation of crimes against white people. In fact the 2009 stats are now out for us to look at.
It is simple for you which explains a lot. I can’t understand how you can justify whether a person hated someone (or group) when he committed the crime to make the crime more serious.
If you hated someone and murdered them would it be a hate crime or does not murder already qualify as a hate crime?
The number of crimes against whites that are classified as hate crimes is very low comapred to the number that are committed, assuming we buy into hate crimes.
If one black guy hates another and hurts him is it a hate crime?
Can we charge the terrorists with hate crimes since they hate America? If so your side would be more willing to do them harm. God knows you all bend over backwards to make sure the hate part is in there.
Hate is a thought and charging someone with a hate crime is punishing thought.
Hate crimes are thought crimes, even if you won’t admit it. When you prosecute a hate crime, you are adding punishment for personal thoughts. Crime & punishment in a free country is based on actions, not thoughts. That’s part of the idea of blind justice (which is not really allowed today).
“If you hated someone and murdered them would it be a hate crime or does not murder already qualify as a hate crime? … If one black guy hates another and hurts him is it a hate crime?”
What is and is not a hate crime is pretty clear cut even if you yourself are confused by the simplicity of it all. The term hate crime is just a label after all. We’re talking about crimes committed out of a bias of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. You can games with the terminology but it doesn’t amount to any reasonable argument.
“The number of crimes against whites that are classified as hate crimes is very low compared to the number that are committed…”
And you base that on what?
“Can we charge the terrorists with hate crimes since they hate America?”
Terrorism is actually another example of a set of crimes in which simply charging one for murder or attempted murder is not appropriate.
“Crime & punishment in a free country is based on actions, not thoughts.”
Except that motive is very important in what charges are handed down from criminal actions and motives are hardly all actions.
“When you prosecute a hate crime, you are adding punishment for personal thoughts.”
Perhaps in the sense that motive is a thought but I wouldn’t phrase it that way. Is charging somebody with premeditated murder adding punishment for personal thoughts? There are examples of this all throughout our legal system and it is hardly unique to hate crimes.
I wonder, Adam, as one who supports punishment based on thoughts, if you think that the fellow that killed the abortion doctor in KS (Tiller, wasn’t it?) should be given a light sentence because he did it out of love and not hate.
We’re paying millions for others to enforce these rules and ensure that people don’t use them incorrectly.