[nfb-talk] Cash

[John Heim]

Reply in-line below.


----- Original Message ----- 
> As I have stated before, though, it is not as much this particular issue 
> but the general pattern that makes me uneasy.  Let's assume that we just 
> disagree hear and
> that money handling has been extremely difficult for you and a major 
> source of stress.  How do we decide which issues are civil rights

  Some newly blinded people
> find most upsetting the fact that they will never see a sunset.  I have 
> heard that stated, so this isn't manufactured.  Most of us would agree 
> that society does not owe
> them someone to describe a sunset on call.  But it soon gets more 
> complicated as we move on up the ladder of issues.  Does society owe us 
> accommodations,
> excluding money for the moment, for things that cause us trouble that we 
> can learn ourselves given training?  Sighted


Steve, have you thought this through at all? The government of the United 
States doesn't issue sunsets. The comparison is totally invalid. The 
principle being applied here is that the government of the United States 
should not be offering its services in such a way as to exclude one class of 
citizens.  Actually, that's more than a principle, it's the law.


people don't have to use canes or dogs, so
> should society assign someone to us so we don't have to go to that extra 
> effort to learn to use a cane or dog?  My guess is that you would agree 
> with me that we are
> better off learning to use a cane or dog, but why?  The point is, though, 
> where is that point where we don't use another technique and expect that 
> we are
> accommodated in some way?


You need to study up on civics. There are 2 concepts you're missing.
1. democracy
2. rule of law

How our society works is that we, as a people, decide what's fair and just. 
We We, as a people, have decided that there should be a level playing 
surface. This is in a law that the judge sited in his ruling that the 
government had to change the bills.

The government is obligated to obey it's laws. There's been no national 
referendum  on changing the money but there doesn't have to be because the 
issue is already covered by existing laws. If you don't like the law, you 
shouldn't have voted for the people who passed it.

I think all this is missing the point anyway since as blind people, we 
shouldn't be advocating against changes that improve our lives. You want to 
save the government mmoney? Fine... Do it on your own time. Don't call 
yourself a representative of blind people while you're doing it.

If the NFB wants to take a libertarian stance, fine. But they should change 
the name of the org to the National Federation of Libertarians then. If 
they're going to call themselves an organization of advocacy for the blind, 
they shouldn't oppose changes that would help blind people.

I think the NFB itself realizes this so they are arguing that the change 
would actually hurt blind people. I find that absurd.