| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > > > > I am actually interested to hear why you have changed
> > > > > > > > you mind on airport/line security.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't believe I *have* changed my mind about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really. Who psoted this then:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > > > I want to get the federal government
> > > > > > _completely_ out of every area where it's made
> > > > > > such a mess -- health care, education, law
> > > > > > enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate
> > > > > > welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not
> > > > > > only are these programs unconstitutional, they do
> > > > > > tremendous damage to our lives.
> > > > > > ==+==
> > > > >
> > > > > Presumably it was me, but whether it was or not (I forget and you gave no
> > > > > link so I can't check without searching) I agree with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing inconsistent there with my stance on airline security or airport
> > > > > security either. The airlines ought to be responsible for security on board
> > > > > airliners and ought to be held accountable (strictly) if and when they blow
> > > > > it. The airport owners (which in most cases are government but SHOULD be
> > > > > private) should be responsible for security in airports and ought to be >>>>held
> > > > > strictly accountable if and when they blow it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Was there a point you were trying to make?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So why is it OK for "the feds" to invade your privacy at the airport but
> > > > nowhere else?
> > >
> > > Um, it's not OK there either. Not at private airports, not in an ideal
> > > system.
> >
> > I'm talking about where the government own the airport.
>
> No, you were talking about *all* airports. But I don't see any difference in
> this case. For example: The government contracts with private firms for
> cleaning in some cases and uses public employees in others. Maintenance,
> cleaning, security. All functions that should be provided in the most
> effective way.
>
> The admins of these airports (as with private ones) ought to individually
> decide what to do about security. If that means they want to use public
> employees, fine but I would not give these employees any more (or less)
> power than private security contractors.
Let me get this straight. You think airline/port security should be set by
the private sector (I have shown they can not be trusted) and regulated by
lawyers (removing the responsibility from the consumer)?
>
> > > We're in a mixed system so some compromises happen. Doesn't mean I
> > > like them or accept them or agree with them or think they are good.
> > >
> > > So no, it is NOT OK and I think we can do much better than we currently have
> > > done.
> > >
> > > The fact that you even ask this question means you haven't really been
> > > paying attention to what I've been saying for lo these many years, because
> > > the answer is a clear implication from first principles, which you must not
> > > have grasped yet.
> >
> > Larry, whenever you start to squirm we either get this "it is not an ideal
> > world yet so we have to compromise for now" answer or we get the "LP
> > dreamland is an ideal world which can never be attained" solution. I wish
> > you would deal with reality.
>
> I deal with reality every day. I wish you would have a *firm grasp* on
> reality, but I digress.
Youch an insult! How adult.
>
> Is there a point here? You don't pay attention, you can't reason from
> premises, you won't admit it, and accusing me of squirming is just your
> typical smokescreen, or in some cases, your typical spew, to try to dodge
> that fact.
Read it again.
>
> > As for "first principles", I have become convinced that you do not even
> > understand what "freedom" really means. What tipped the balance was this post:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13204
>
> I'm totally comfortable with what I said there and see no contradiction.
> Feel free to explain how it shows that I don't understand what freedom
> means. Freedom does NOT mean letting those that violate your rights get away
> with it if you can help it.
Your comfort is irrelvant. You said what happened on the 11th was an attack
on "freedom and liberty", I'm just asking you to justify that (if you can).
This text questions the premis that it was an attack on freedom and liberty:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html
The author takes it apart. It is a long text, but well worth the read. Read
it, and then tell me what you mean by "freedom and liberty".
>
> I'd say it's a lot more likely that you have no comprehension whatever of
> freedom or rights or the markets or critical thought or a host of other
> things. Why don't you go away?
The fact that you think I do not understand these things shows me that you
do not understand them.
ho hum.
Scott A
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Scott, you haven't shown any such thing. You have shown that _you_ _think_ they can't be trusted. Based on the fact that some people in the past have made mistakes. Since I can demonstrate government agencies that make hideous, disasterous, (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) No, you were talking about *all* airports. But I don't see any difference in this case. For example: The government contracts with private firms for cleaning in some cases and uses public employees in others. Maintenance, cleaning, security. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
