Disablism, a little late

There is this idea in the United States that private property is something that exists outside of society. We see our ownership as being more important than the role property plays in society and deserving of more respect than the general good it does or does not do. I find that idea misguided. We cannot possess property if we do not live in society; outside of society property is simply what anyone can pick up, reap or stand on without someone else taking it away. Society and the covenants of society are what grant ownership beyond the immediate; without the common compact that allows us this permanence of property we would not own anything, nor would we have redress to justice if our property rights were infringed upon. How can we have property rights when we do not have property?

The idea of property and the rights that come with it is an idea that was one of the cornerstones of American democracy. When Jefferson plagiarized John Locke in the declaration of independence he may have changed “right to property” to “right to happiness,” but he did not change the consequence. Jefferson probably didn’t envision a society in which acquisition is the measure of all value, but the idea that property exists is the thing that allows and encourages that sort of society. Before we had the idea of an otherness that enforces our rights to more than the present measure of property (what we are holding, standing on), we lacked the ability of ownership to such an extent that we lacked the ability to live in any way other than the present. You can’t think about the future if you are forced to inhabit something continuously in order to claim it as your own, in order to protect your interests from the interests of others. John Locke had the same idea; it was this idea of permanence, of continuity that appeals to us as people who lack those things in our frailty. We think of leaving a legacy, or endowing something for future generations because we wish to live on in this ephemeral way once our lives have ended. We endow others with the thing we value, property, so that our lives are not lived in vain.

It’s interesting to me that property is the thing we cling to, rather than the good that mankind can do and be or the beauty we spy in the world. Of all the rights we are guaranteed by society, property is the one that is the most easily taken away. We think nothing of downloading just one song because we think it is our right as consumers who have paid too much in the past. Or, we look the other way when someone claims entitlement to the spoils of another’s labor. The reality is, anything we own, anything we steal is only guaranteed us as long as we remain in society and society agrees to our common compact. This agreement with society takes the place of our physical ability to stand on our property and protect it continuously from others. We aren’t guaranteed property by nature or by anything supernatural; society is the only force that can bestow property and deem it yours, mine or ours. This idea of property has been a contentious one since fences were invented. There are those who still believe that property, land, is something we only have a right to in the moment. Some gypsy cultures believe this and they make an art of finding ways to relieve of us of our illusions of permanence. I’m not entirely sure they’re wrong. As the saying goes, you can’t take it with you. What, then, is the point of all of this permanence?

I don’t know the answer to that question. All I can reasonably discuss is the role property plays in society and the ways society guarantees it. Back to my original point: this current idea that property is ours outside of society (naturally?) is relatively new in modern thinking. I haven’t researched it and don’t know where it originated, but I do know that it has taken hold in libertarian circles in the U.S. The idea is something like this: if I own property it is mine and mine alone and I can therefore do with it what I wish. That seems like a reasonable contention when you’re talking about things like gathering acorns; the problem becomes, how do you apply that standard when you are operating a business in society? Do your property rights trump other people’s rights to safety, independence and sovereignty? If we are reasonable, we have to answer those questions negatively. Society won’t function if we allow property rights to supersede our right to safety.

This debate has been gaining momentum in the last 15 or so years. The rights of property owners to allow people to smoke in their establishments has been hotly contested, as have the rights of property owners to decide whether or not they will provide access to the disabled in society. I’d like to put aside the smoking issue as that seems like an easy argument to make and one only the most short sighted and selfish people could possibly argue with a straight face. The access issue is a bit more complex.

As I’ve already discussed at length, the Americans with Disabilities Act guarantees rights for people who are unable to do hear, see, think or move in the same way as the majority of society. It requires wheelchair ramps, handicap parking, automatic doors, employment rights, etc. People are often surprised to hear that there are people who still view the ADA as wrong; not wrong in that it doesn’t go far enough to guarantee access and rights; wrong in that it puts the rights of a minority over the rights of property owners. The thinking is, if you own your property (or rent it to own a business), then you have the right to conduct it in any way you choose. The problem with this idea, though, is that it leaves out a key part of the equation of property ownership: society. As discussed above, there is no such thing as property without society; so, denying the rights and well being of society in asserting property rights over society is not only selfish, it’s unworkable.

If you provide a service to society you must provide that service in a way that does not harm society. The reason we have a health department to inspect restaurants for cleanliness and proper food handling is because we do not want society to suffer from the ill effects of food poisoning. It doesn’t just affect the individual poisoned; it affects society in that the individual is a part of society and will, in some way, call on society to ameliorate their suffering. This is putting aside our basic right to live and our right to health when someone willingly acts in a way to cause harm to others through negligence; that’s given. Society requires that we do what we can to make sure that our actions, in business and in personal life, are within the bounds of the laws of society and the good of society. It’s the nature of the entire enterprise.

When businesses complain that providing access for the disabled is not their concern and is an undue burden they often confuse personal property with public property. You do not have to make your home accessible since that is your personal property. The same goes for your car. But if you open the doors of your business to citizens you do not have the right to open them to only part of that certain citizens. You can’t operate within the bounds of society, expecting your rights to be protected by the common compact, and not allow for the same to be true for everyone else. In other words, if you expect to reap the benefits living amongst your fellow citizens provides, you must also expect to follow the rules and to allow everyone else to reap the benefits of living in society.

Maybe I'm wrong; I don't seem to have much more to say. I was typing along at a pretty good clip when I was interrupted, and now I seem to have lost it. Well, part of an idea is better than nothing. The larger point I was going to make is that you can't call a thing a right if it isn't enforced. You can't say that you believe something if you are acting in a way that contradicts that belief. If we believe that all people are equal in this country, then we must accept the idea that all people deserve consideration and access to services. The ADA doesn't ask for anything unreasonable, only the basic access and rights that able bodied people enjoy without thought.

Picture credit