| |
(I accidentally e-mailed my reply, and I see Larry has already replied,
but I'll add my thoughts anyway...)
James Simpson wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> trust public safety to private enterprise without heavy regulations.
By ensuring that private enterprise can be held accountable by free
market means. This includes giving consumers free and informed choices.
This includes giving investors free and informed choices. This includes
assuring that the law does not shield anyone from responsibility (which
among other things implicitly removes almost all limits on lawsuits -
the only real limit should be the judges discretion to toss a suit out,
and the juries freedom to decide what THEY think is right, and to make
sure the appeals process has no artificial limits [including time limits
to place an appeal - let the appelate judges decide too much time has
passed based on the circumstances] - and allow the judge to apply court
costs as they see fit).
In a more free market, I would not have a problem with the government
offering air marshals, but I do have a problem with the government
mandating them.
I'm not too worried about cut rate airlines having their planes
hi-jacked and flown into tall buildings. In a properly free market, no
airport in the US will let them operate, and if they come from another
country and refuse to turn back, they will be shot down (but I suspect
they won't even try). The aircraft which operate will have transponders
(not doing so says you have something to hide). They will have black
boxes (not doing so means the airline has no way to prove it isn't at
fault in a crash). They will have appropriate security. They will be
well maintained. They will probably be safer.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
