| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur 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.
> > >
> > > Was there a point you were trying to make?
> >
> >
> > So why is it OK for "the feds" to invade your privacy at the airport but
> > nowhere else?
>
> Um, it's not OK there either. Not at private airports, not in an ideal
> system.
I'm talking about where the government own the airport.
> 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 think we can do much better than we currently have
> done.
>
> The fact that you even ask this question means you haven't really been
> paying attention to what I've been saying for lo these many years, because
> the answer is a clear implication from first principles, which you must not
> have grasped yet.
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 never be attained" solution. I wish
you would deal with reality.
As for "first principles", I have become convinced that you do not even
understand what "freedom" really means. What tipped the balance was this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13204
In your version of reality, freedom is too strongly linked to $$ and goes no
further than your own "back yard".
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
