[int3]

even if it were 10%, we shouldn't expect 90% of consumers to subsidize the other 10%

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm not sure how to separate this mindset from one that would have commercial buildings not be required to include elevators and wheelchair ramps. Do you also think that's an unfair burden to put on the roughly-90% of people who are not mobility-impaired? (Not implying any judgement either way, just curious if this is a consistent viewpoint).

[int3]

I think one difference is that there isn't a great alternative option in the case of commercial buildings -- if you have a job in a given building that doesn't accommodate your disability, you can't just go find a different building. But insofar as food is concerned, you could pay more for more carefully-manufactured food, or just cook for yourself

[olalonde]

> Do you also think that's an unfair burden to put on the roughly-90% of people who are not mobility-impaired?

Not op, but I share his view and don't think commercial buildings should be forced to accommodate people who are mobility-impaired.

[daemin]

This sort of thought implies not believing in insurance of any kind. Why should people pay into a common fund when only a small percentage of them will ever use it.

[int3]

People generally don't develop allergies randomly in life. There's no insurance value here.

[valicord]

I guess we should repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act then?

[bnralt]

Yes? If the government can find a better way to help people with disabilities, great. But small business being sued because a booth is 6 inches too small, or universities having to take down lectures because they lacked close captioning seems to clearly go to far to me. People seem to have a terrible time understanding diffused societal costs and opportunity costs.

[int3]

unironically. would love to have those berkeley lectures back online

[Der_Einzige]

You won't like how popular such a repeal would be. Americans really hate the less fortunate of their society.