Ron Paul & disability rights?

[erowe1]

One basic right that is especially important for disabled people, especially developmentally disabled people, is the right to offer their labor at the price of their choosing. In the status quo this right has been taken away through minimum wage laws and all sorts of other regulations that dictate to employers and employees what kinds of agreements they can make between themselves. People who are not able to work at a high enough production level to where revenue they generate is enough to cover the cost of employing them at the state dictated minimum wage are left without the power to get jobs or to negotiate the hours they work or benefits. I don't think eliminating the minimum wage is high on Ron Paul's agenda. But he's the only candidate I know who certainly won't raise it. That's one huge boon to disabled rights right there.

 

[KramerDSP]

After reading all the comments, I think there may be some confusion about what RP would do in the right conditions and what RP would actually be able to do as president. He has said that even though he is opposed to the idea of social security, he would use the money we are spending overseas home on those programs to help those who have been taught to rely on them. At the same time, he would allow those that wished to opt out of the program the same opportunities. As I said before, I would think the ADA law would be the least of his worries right now, even though in principle, he would be opposed to it. He isn't going to dismantle programs left and right with a magic wave of his hand, and some of your responses seem to suggest that very case.

I completely understand about the government coercing force, but if I were confined to a wheelchair for life, I'd want ramps to be around so that I can be more independent and not need to rely on others. For deaf people, yes, there are those that cling to the state and do nothing but live on the SSI money and say "poor me", but there are far more focused on the accessibility issues such as closed captioning. If there were no closed captioning, I would have to become more DEPENDENT on others, which is the opposite of what I am striving for, which is more unadultured independence. I'll never quite get that, because I rely on sign language interpreters when in meetings to recieve my information 100% clearly and efficiently, and that's OK, but I think accessibility things such as ramps and captions should be left alone. At the very least, I freely admit that I am only viewing it from one side and would appreciate out of the box thinking on how to address captioning if such services were to be dismantled (purely hypothetical, though).

I wanted to throw some more thoughts at you all. Technology has been a huge benefit to those of us in the deaf community, because we now have videophones, sign language interpreters, closed captioning, sidekicks, and so many more "deaf-friendly" devices that make accessibility that much better. Technology, being as free market as you can get, causes the quality to keep going up and up while the price goes down and down.

The problem is as the technology advances, the hearing people using the technology don't always advance with the technology. That probably did not make sense, but my point is this. Youtube videos and podcasts are everywhere. Yet, they are practically unacessibile to those with hearing losses, unless one enjoys playing the game of "let's make up what they're saying" while watching the youtube video. The only thing deaf people can't do is hear, but the rest of the country does not know how to use sign language (Martha's Vineyard was the last time an entire community essentially used sign language as their second language). Because we are missing the sense of hearing, accessibility becomes an issue. I am not asking for handouts at all. Just accessibility.

To any of you youtube film makers that throw out awesome RP videos, I would sincerely appreciate if you would add subtitles to them before releasing them or release another version with the subtitles if you don't like seeing the words on the video. I've used http://dotsub to transcribe videos, and I really think this is the secret weapon to raise RP awareness to a worldwide level. All we need is a few RP supporters versed in different languages to translate the films that I have already transcribed in english. From there, RP videos will be accessibie to people of all walks of life using the internet worldwide. We are part of something magical, and the more the message spreads, the better off this world will be for it.

Continue the jousting! I, for one, enjoy this dialogue. Since late June of 2007 when I first learned of RP on the internet, I feel like I have taken 21 credits of a college semester. I welcome more education.

 

[MadTheologian]

One basic right that is especially important for disabled people, especially developmentally disabled people, is the right to offer their labor at the price of their choosing. In the status quo this right has been taken away through minimum wage laws and all sorts of other regulations that dictate to employers.

Google up "sheltered workshops" and you will see what crap wages one gets.

BTW, read up on this section from Ragged Edge magazine:

http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/garrett/index.html

It looks like many of these problems lies with the States. Who involuntarily sterilized so called "morons"-- many of who have normal intelligence? Who deprive the disabled of voting rights? It's various STATES! This is precisely why I cherish the 14th Amendment.

 

[LeadvilleCompuGeek]

I put my questions to the folks at RP's election site and this is what I got-

>Thanks for writing the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign. Ron Paul
>basically does not agree with the federal government's involvement
>with anything that is not explicitly authorized by our Constitution.
>He holds that "Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC,
>the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and
>those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves
>innocent. Of course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit
>guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians
>because it firmly establishes just who is in charge." Of course he
>supports the rights of those people that these organizations affect,
>but more so supportive of state's right to determine the proper
>handling of matters outside of the Constitution.
>
>Something else I found that may be of interest to you is how Ron Paul
>is interested in lowering health care costs for people with
>disabilities and you can read more about that at
>http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474

I like the looks of what I see.

LeadvilleCompuGeek,

Well, then by all means, break into my house and steal my property to support yourself. Just have the honesty to do it yourself.

Excuse me, but I have no need or desire to force my way into your home nor do I have a need or desire to take any possessions of yours. Sadly it is that very attitude that shows you as a bigot. I hoped I was wrong about you.

Or, was there an argument there besides calling me bigoted and ignorant? I must have missed it.

If you can't see the difference between COERCING help and asking for help then I think you are pretty ignorant.

Your attitude speaks volumes Brutus. And no, it's not that at all. I have coerced no one.

That doesn't make sense. Why not educate us?

I did make it a point to educate RP's 2008 Election site in my inquiry. It was a follow up to the first letter which I already quoted. Here is their response to the second letter-
>I am sorry to read about your story. With regard to what Ron Paul
>could do as president, I would only say that addressing an issue like
>yours is not a federal power or right as delegated by the
>Constitution. While Ron Paul does not support the type of
>discrimination you have faced, he would not support increased
>bureaucracy to manage this issue with the idea that it eventually does
>more bad than good for the average person (non-bureaucrat). I
>appreciate the time you have taken to write the Ron Paul campaign and
>I wish you the best.


From everything I have seen on Ron Paul, everything I've seen him do, even though he's not catering to my specific demands and wishes, he is supporting my biggest concern- invasive government.

Go read up on the ADA and the associated disability laws, follow their history, and you'll find out how mismanagement of them is what makes them the evil creature they are. A lot of unfair restrictions are there now because of that. Restrictions that most usually serve little basis or cause and provide nothing but trouble for everyone.

With the rights that Ron is talking about restoring, I seriously doubt I'll have as much of a problem then that I have now. I feel that with his guidance the ADA can be re-written to serve as it originally was intended, and still be of no burden or hinderance to the disabled or the general public/employers/schools/etc.

He can't do it alone, we have to help him. Running America is not a one man job. And America's here for all of us. Even you, Brutus.

 

[Corydoras]

With the rights that Ron is talking about restoring, I seriously doubt I'll have as much of a problem then that I have now. I feel that with his guidance the ADA can be re-written to serve as it originally was intended, and still be of no burden or hinderance to the disabled or the general public/employers/schools/etc.

I honestly don't see how what you're saying contradicts what most of us are saying.
If a law needs to be rewritten, as you say the ADA does, it's bad law.

 

[Brutus]

LeadvilleCompuGeek,

Support for laws which force people or companies to cater to your needs under threat of being shot (because that is ultimately what backs up all laws) is coercion. Using threats of violence against people whose "crime" is not being sufficiently considerate of you is coercion. The fact that you don't understand political theory doesn't make me a bigot. You have no idea what I do to/for people. You only know that I hold a self-consistent political philosophy which involves not shooting people needlessly.

 

[Brutus]

You also know that I'm tired of some people using the threat of shooting other people to make the other people cater to their own aesthetics (as opposed to protecting their lives/property). I guess that makes two things you know.

I have a long list of desires for other people's behavior, but I try to convince them of the rightness of that behavior, not threaten them with being shot if they don't follow through. I spend a lot of time inculcating "do a good turn daily" into the minds of young men, but I've yet to recommend anyone be locked up, fined or sued for failing in a given instant.

Laws are a very poor substitute for actually thinking of others. In fact, they are a very miserable substitute because they demean both the controlling and the controller.

"What isn't illegal is mandatory."

Proud to be labeled a bigot by LeadvilleCompuGeek.

 

[Brutus]

For example, if there were a law requiring anyone with empty arms to open doors for those with arms encumbered by Christmas packages, we'll call it the "Christmas Spirit" law it would negate any courtesy shown by opening doors and any gratitude from those for whom doors are opened.

The people opening doors for others aren't doing it out of love for their fellow man, they are increasingly doing it out of fear of fines and imprisonment. Those for whom doors are opened don't know if they should be thankful to the person who paid the price of opening the door for them or to the person who passed the law which cost him nothing at all but imposed costs on others. The person forced to open the door now resents the action because it is a COERCED action, not a gesture of goodwill to someone in need. Rather than the recipient showing thanks for the thoughtfulness, he'll expect and DEMAND the catering to him. What previously had been a blessing to both parties is now an incident of forced behavior, a reduction in everyone's freedom.

These social changes take time to occur, but they do occur, and they are damaging to the voluntary social framework which governs the vast majority of our lives.

 

[Brutus]

However, I'm a bigot because I think in a larger context than your convenience. I'm so sorry.

 

[LeadvilleCompuGeek]

I fail to understand where shooting anyone has become part of this discussion Brutus.

 

[Brutus]

It was in the parenthetical... (because that is ultimately what backs up all laws).

 

[Brutus]

"Consider the deaf person who recently sued for not being hired as a lifeguard. The managers of the beach were concerned that the deaf person may not hear drowning screams for help. The ADA lawyers didn't care. To the ADA, life and death issues take a back seat when it comes to justifying their jobs."

"When the government takes over a free society’s traditional responsibilities, that now less-free society instantly begins to abandon its natural instinct to help those who need and want help. So when a small business owner sees a one-legged cripple hobble up to his door on crutches, he is far more likely today to think when he sees me, "Grab that $300 handbar and let yourself in. You’re now equal!" Before the ADA cost him a small fortune to remodel, he was far more likely to go help his customers who needed help."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry9.html

So, yes, my ignorant statement is that even if I win a lawsuit I lose because I can't afford the time and money in court and legal fees to justify to some government busybody my actions. And I'm just a bigot enough to think I shouldn't have to.

So, my "ignorant" "bigoted" and "worse than a nazi's" opinion is shared by someone with one leg and three fingers. I can live with that.

 

[LeadvilleCompuGeek]

Exactly. Because a deaf man sued to be a lifeguard, all disabled people must be prohibited from having any rights under the law.

I don't recall putting this here, I may have and I don't recall where, but I am not only disabled, but employed and self-employed. A total of all my taxes I pay, on income alone, has never been less than 54%. How much do you pay? I would expect that under RP's leadership, that everyone have equal rights for all, special rights for none. Right now with the excessive taxes I pay, I also have NO RIGHTS. Funny coincidence, huh? So if I expect some protection under the law, I think I should get it. And if you think it's taking you out and shooting you, you're wrong. There is no comparison. And it clearly burdens no one. Only burden you face is the fact that you don't like it.

I find this amazing. You and I have never met and already I'm supposedly stealing from you and threatening to shoot you.

I'll be sure to keep my mouth shut the next time I have any questions about RP's platforms, Brutus. Sorry it offended you that much. I could have sworn that being in America meant I had the right to ask such questions, but alas, I see I was wrong.

 

[Brutus]

LeadvilleCompuGeek,

Your argument is incoherent. There is no RIGHT to be employed by someone who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

Do you not understand exactly what it is which backs up taxes and laws? The IRS doesn't show up with flowers and love letters, you know. If you advocate laws which violate my rights or take my property then you are stealing from me and using the threat of shooting me to make sure I comply. The fact that it gets a majority vote doesn't change the nature of the transaction. Most people (including me for the first 20 years of my life) didn't understand this connection. It is jarring to realize it, but it helps to put things in perspective.

I'm sorry that you pay about 50% of your income in taxes. My story is about the same. I've yet to see anyone contend that you have NO RIGHTS. You have no SPECIAL rights to compel others to treat you in a particular way so long as they don't steal from you, same as every other person. Do you actually understand what the concept of "right" means?

I've yet to see you actually be told not to speak, by me or anyone else. Please continue, but if you want to make an argument you could try reasoning instead of ad hominems and guilt by association (the things which you lead off with).

I'm very sorry that your comparison of me to nazis at the beginning of this exchange didn't scare me into silence. It isn't a very mature tactic for civilized debate. It is only after you pulled this nice debate trick that I compared your actions to stealing and shooting. Guess you don't like it coming back at you much.

 

[Corydoras]

Exactly. Because a deaf man sued to be a lifeguard, all disabled people must be prohibited from having any rights under the law.

Which parts of the Bill of Rights don't you have, for example?

 

[nickcoons]

Right now with the excessive taxes I pay, I also have NO RIGHTS.

What rights do you feel that you are missing?