 | | The big lie
|
|
From Forbes, which is much more libertarian than Fortune (which is why I subscribe to one and read the other on airplanes where it's free to me) (URL) I say I totally agree that we do not need changes in the Bill of Rights? Airport Security (...) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Also this piece by Richard Stallman: (URL) (who's never had his baggage searched at any airport, even when he declared slightly more than allowable value at customs 8?) (23 years ago, 17-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Are you saying that the do not want your government to invade the privacy of individuals which they suspect may be terrorists in a manner which is simpler that it is right now, but it is OK for them to improve airport security? In either case, (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Correct. I don't want civil rights lessened or destroyed across the board. (...) I suspect you are reading things correctly, unfortunately. That doesn't make what happens "right" though, as I've said before, just because a majority votes (or (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I find a quote of Benjamin Franklin's expresses my views on the subject. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's a bit harsh, but I agree with it, and with Larry, (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GJx8oE.2rq@lugnet.com... (...) Rights? (...) of (...) With regards to airport security, I would have thought you would want to leave it to the airlines to improve security? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Maybe, maybe not. This is definitely on the agenda, however: (URL) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Don't just take my word for it: See the wiretap section of this page: (URL) ACLU and the LP are hardly allies on much of anything these days... except civil liberties). As for your "willing to authorise innocent deaths" red herring, it's your (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Hardly. Perhaps you should read you own posts. A quick search finds these 2 where you condone civilian deaths: (URL) note that in your reply, you failed to address these points: 1. Your apparent departure from your usual LP dogma. 2. Your (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Have a deeper look. Under the proposed legislation, the usual standard of proof is not needed, all that is needed is to assert National Security... that's "unauthorised". Further, the current restriction to particular people or phones would be (...) (23 years ago, 27-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Lack of the "usual standard" does not equal "no standard". Lifting the "current restriction" does not equal "no restriction". But even if you paranoia was well founded (I don't mean the stuff about the black helicopters). Surely you (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Well, that's why I brought it up in the first place... There are people working to try to influence the legislature NOT to do that. But in a time of hysteria, when laws are made up in one day and then passed that same day or the next by (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) My mistake. 1st point I don't feel I twist your words, but I think you do twist my own. The way you do this is to quote me out of context. 2nd point. I did not say wars could not be fought without death did I? (...) I don't follow. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) You are wriggling. What about the cases where the airport is private, you think they should set their own levels of security? Do you oppose the plan to place government “air marshals” in planes? Do you think private security guards would be (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Larry: I agree with you on principle here, but my question is how we can remove the incentive to cut corners from private enterprise when public safety is at issue, yet still maintain a true free-market enterprise? IMO, we just cannot really (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Yes. (...) Yes. Or armed passengers if the airline so chooses. (...) No. But it should also not shield airlines from lawsuits for negligence and wrongful death if the airlines don't put sufficent standards and safeguards in place. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Not I *M* O, though. See Friedman. "Heavy regulations" are not required, just full consequence facing. Current corporate law shields officers from culpability. We've had this discussion before. Nothing has changed my view. (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(I accidentally e-mailed my reply, and I see Larry has already replied, but I'll add my thoughts anyway...) (...) issue, (...) By ensuring that private enterprise can be held accountable by free market means. This includes giving consumers free and (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I'm still resolving that part of the issue for myself, but it puts me in mind of the other side of the coin: Since the airlines are primarily private corporations, and the aircraft are their property, they are well within their rights (correct (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Yes. And a fully private system with airlines and airports each making individual decisions on this may well be significantly more complex to administer and track. At least at first. (hmm... I'm flying to Hobby today... that means pack my (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Err...at the risk of being completely obtuse...I'm just curious: are you coming back to town this weekend? james, who doesn't know what either flechettes or tranqs are, but otherwise gets the point that firearm regulations under different (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Not unless flechette guns have already been cleared for use at Hobby. :-) that was a hypothetical example, I just chose a city with two airports that I could remember the names of so that the reroute made sense. (...) A flechette gun (not sure (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) That's a pity. I was hoping I could talk you into a day trip to Austin for the Texlug meeting. Speaking of Hobby, about 8 years ago one of my closest friends, B, was dropping off one of his friends at Hobby who was catching a plane to St. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | bailout (was Re: The big lie)
|
|
(...) I really do worry about the support the airlines are getting. I know the last few weeks have been tough for them, but the fact is that that the 4 flights which were lost on the 11th were flying from good slots but yet they were no where near (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I agree. I don't want airline security to be set by consumer focus groups. I think the public will always trust a government regulated system more. The private sector can't be trusted: (URL) by the air industry in the USA to oppose (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) "Good morning Mr Mohamed Atta, you can certainly board the flight with your large licensed gun. We have reserved your seat right up front next to the cockpit. By the way, why is your passport made out of asbestos?" Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) So why is it OK for "the feds" to invade your privacy at the airport but nowhere else? Scott A (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I deny none of the above except the unstated implication that this is the only possible outcome. Remember, these actions are by heavily regulated firms that, as it turns out, managed to (quite easily) wriggle off the hook for liability. To (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Um, it's not OK there either. Not at private airports, not in an ideal system. 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 (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I'm talking about where the government own the airport. (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) The regulations are largely irrelevant. Generally they set a minimum standard, not a maximum one. It is my understanding that UA and AA are open to litigation for their "failure" on the 11th - is that not the case? (...) I'm not clear on what (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) That's the theory, but in practice it has turned out that regulations are HIGHLY relevant... they are a min-max. In other industries the defense that "we were in conformance with standards" has been an accepted defense. This has been discussed (...) (23 years ago, 30-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) 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)? (...) Youch an insult! How adult. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Well can you justify your comments after reading the text I quote? Scott A (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) hideous, (...) I was talking more about how the air industry has weakened security proposals in the past - not their failure to implement existing regulations. (...) it's (...) it. (...) So (...) work, (...) My worry is that if the market is (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Because it was expensive. Everything has a price and sometimes we're not willing to pay it. (...) I agree with the final comment. Why would a government agency provide more sure widget maintenance than would a private corporation. (...) I'm (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Come on Larry, I really am interested in what you think freedom & liberty means, both within the context of the text I quoted and your fondness for the thoughts of George Roberson. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) But a good deal of others are. Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of talk about how weak air security within the US compared the the rest of the "west". (...) Like I said, I just worry about corners being cut. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 3-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Me too. This is a very valid concern, and it's true for more than just this particular instance. So you should support mechanisms that are likely to reduce the probability of corners being cut and oppose mechanisms that are likely to increase (...) (23 years ago, 4-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) ??? The FAA has fined airlines many times for rebadging used parts (or dangerous/damaged parts) as certified for re-use. Seems damned obvious to me that the private corps are trying to cut widget maintenance costs IN SPITE OF government agency (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) What is the question? It reads like some sort of order, but is has a "?" at the end. (...) Where? (...) In what way? (...) Nope. Market forces in forced this issue. (...) Should I? (...) I should? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Seemed pretty obvious to me. It is a yes/no question. (...) Are you actually engaging in grammar flaming? That's a yes/no question, by the way, in case you weren't sure. If you're going to ding me for a misplaced question mark (which in this (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I have made some changes and insertions so that the resulting statement is one that I agree with. (...) c/private/mixed/ (Mixed economy corps, not private. If they take bailouts, invoke liability shields, and use subsidised facilities, they (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Punctuation. It is not a flame (you are so confrontational), just a clarification. (...) Larry, I am still not clear what the point of you message is/was. Scott A (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
Larry, This is all fine and good, but IF they were to fully privatize airlines/airports/ma...nance/etc, and remove the liability shields........ how long would YOU wait before flying again? I sure as hell wouldn't fly for many years. I wouldn't want (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I'd be in the air that very day. :-) (...) That would be a great place to start... we should be pushing for it. I wrote my rep and my senators about it already, although now that the bailout passed, getting it undone isn't likely. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) But Tom... Under the system proposed by Larry, if your plane were to fall from the skies your loved ones would be able to tale the airlines to the cleaners. Is that not good enough for you? :) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Why the smiley? It's certainly good enough for me! What better to avoid such disasters than the certainty that rapid and humongous suits would follow? Chris (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) That's fine on paper, but I'm willing to bet that airlines will, in really short order, retain the most expensive and effective lawyers money can buy, far in excess of the ability of the individual to afford, even if a class-action suit is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I'll take the other side of that bet in a heartbeat. As long as I get to set the overall rules of the game, that is. You can even call me on whether they conform to my principles or not. (...) Won't happen... unless that's the right outcome. (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) A lot of good that does the people that die from the incident. I would rather choose not to be one of those people. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support | Sun Microsystems Customer Service | iPlanet Support - (URL) Please do (...) (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Very understandable. We all want to minimise risk! You may want to consider not getting out of bed in the morning, then, on a regular basis. It's a big bad risky world out there. Except, wait, that turns out to be riskier than being active. (23 years ago, 5-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) such (...) I would certainly rather not have my plane fall from the sky. That is precisely why I'd rather there be real consequences to such an accident. I assume and believe: 1) Getting airplanes to fly doesn't require voodoo. 2) A well (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Except if the pilot decides to make it unsafe. There's always a human factor, as the skillful pilots showed on Sep 11. ROSCO (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Right, but that doesn't change the "need for culpability" argument one bit. In fact following this thread of it circles you from the more general "how to make flying safe" theme we were on for the last few posts, and back around to the "how to (...) (23 years ago, 6-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More on Airport security.
|
|
This seems apropos. It questions the current federalization proposal from a different angle, the angle of who it is that ought to pay for it. (URL) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) is difficult to justify a situation in which fliers and non-fliers alike would be taxed to provide a service that primarily benefits the first group." Umm, how many of the victims were actually on the planes? How do you[1] choose who benefits (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Doesn't matter who benefits. What matters is who is RESPONSIBLE. And that is the airlines. If they're not flying, no potential weapons... So the airlines should pay, or the passengers deriving benefit from travel and thus causing the risk to (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) would (...) choose (...) Then why did Klick make a point of it? The current service being provided (air travel) benefits the passengers and is already paid for by them (generally). The proposed service (enhanced security) does not only benefit (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Larry, this is a stark example of how your Libertarianism takes ideas out of context. You have some idea that rights and risks adhere to individuals. But that is no longer the essential principle in our present context. Rights have already (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Rather than comparing it to coal plants, how about keeping it within the realm of transport? Most reasonable people accept that roads should be policed to ensure that they are safe where driver/owner safety considerations are concerned. Why (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Which property of the airlines are you talking? Their god given right to fly above people? (...) The essential difference between these two is this: There IS a right to freedom of speech, but there is NO right to freedom of flight. (...) If (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Yes, keeping it to traffic. I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Germany, and most of Europe ... ... people pay for the trafic-safe state of their cars themselves ... people pay for their liability insurance themselves ... (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay for the policing? (...) I think you should act reasonably. (...) Some say they do already (tax). (...) Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) passengers (...) No, in this case it is necessary because terrorists are threatening to use the planes as bombs. Otherwise the extra security would've been put in place before Sep 11. (...) But that's what's being proposed! (...) I disagree. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) I see that as almost inevitable. Maybe not in the next 20 years, maybe not in the next 50, but I think it will happen eventually. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Essentially, if threats by foreign governments are made against a book publisher, or an airline, it's the same problem. It might as well be a dry cleaner for all that. (...) You mean there are definitions in this group? Really, what's the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) No, since I neve had a beer with you, I can only agree that banning beer or banning cars seems exaggerated. (...) The world we live in is based on mono-causal relationships? I don't see it that way. And I am probably more pro sharing than a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Horst, in future please don't trim the "who wrote what" lines away... if you cite some prose at 4 or 5 or 6 nest levels deep it's important to know who said what else you run the risk of severe misquoting. So the referenced post should have (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
