| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Do you think private security guards would be better?
>
> Yes. Or armed passengers if the airline so chooses.
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 me if I'm wrong) to restrict firearms on board
their aircraft just as non-gov't airports are within their rights to
restrict firearms within the airports. Even if, therefore, airlines allow
passengers to be armed, couldn't the airports simply say "no weapons,"
thereby making the question of onboard weapons irrelevant?
> But [the gov't] should also not shield airlines from lawsuits for negligence
> and wrongful death if the airlines don't put sufficent standards and
> safeguards in place. The bailout bill lets the airlines off the hook.
I know this is the "too big to fail" argument, but what happens in cases
in which the corporate body (in this case, the airlines) is so large a part
of the economy and the economic infrastructure that its sudden failure (or
drastic reduction) has a huge detrimental effect beyond its own industry?
Is there no point at which gov't intervention is appropriate? It seems to
me that in a free market economy, the lag between an industry's failure and
its subsequent resuscitation by other bodies (new shareholders, etc.) would
cause too great a problem in the overall economy to justify a complete lack
of gov't shore-up.
Hmm... More for me to think about...
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
