Subject:
|
Re: The *militia* saved flight 93 from a worse fate...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Sep 2001 22:16:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
366 times
|
| |
|
|
Hello Larry,
> Well, this is a specific instance of the general assertion "public activity
> X (in which strangers are thrown together and have to get along) is safer if
> some small fraction of the public is armed (and further, if the baddies
> aren't quite sure WHO it is that is armed)".
Well, that would probably hold some truth, if the baddies weren't also
enabled to carry BETTER weapons by such a liberal regulation.
> You can either let that assertion stand, or you'll just have to dive into
> the firearms discussion again. :-)
Well, so be it then ;-)
> > And how can people working in skyscrapers be more safe when people decide to
> > NOT pay for it?
>
> If the airlines, in the general case, are held liable for their negligence.
>
> I would submit that the NY/NH Port Authority (the owners of the WTC) ought
> to submit a bill to United and American for the replacement cost of the WTC,
> as one can clearly argue quite effectively that it was airline negligence
> that lost them the lease payments they were going to get.
>
> If strict liability is in place, airlines will require that passengers pay
> for it or not carry them.
>
> What we have now is a huge dodge of liability by the airlines because they
> "might go bankrupt" and they are "too big to fail".
>
> Fooey.
>
> They OUGHT to go bankrupt, they have massively mismanaged things. That's the
> appropriate punishment for the stockholders of a mismanaged company, loss of
> the entire value of the stock.
There is two problems with this approach, though:
1. Once they are bancrupt, they may not have paid for all the damage yet.
2. How much is the value of 5000 lives in USD?
Greetings
Horst
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
