| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson 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.
>
> 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.
>
> james
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:
http://www.airsafetyonline.com/news/2001/08/02/4.shtml
Efforts by the air industry in the USA to oppose improvements in security
has lead to the situation where the USA very lax security for internal flights.
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1538000/1538682.stm
==+==
Within the last decade, a major commission headed by then US Vice-President
Al Gore recommended increasing security to international levels - but the
industry opposed the idea so strongly that the plan was never adopted, say
industry insiders.
==+==
If the Gore Commission did not make any recommendations I can assume
security would have been even worse than it was on the 11th.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
