| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> The regulations are largely irrelevant. Generally they set a minimum
> standard, not a maximum one.
That's the theory, but in practice it has turned out that regulations are
HIGHLY relevant... they are a min-max. In other industries the defense that
"we were in conformance with standards" has been an accepted defense. This
has been discussed in depth before here, and elsewhere. See Friedman, for
example. So regulations get you standards that everyone tries to exactly
meet and not do better on.
> It is my understanding that UA and AA are open
> to litigation for their "failure" on the 11th - is that not the case?
No, I believe they are off the hook. They will be liable only up to the
extent of their insurance and no further. That's part of the bailout, unless
it changed at the last minute. So it's not the case.
> > To make this indictment stick for a strict liability system like is proposed
> > you would need to show that wriggling off the hook was even possible, much
> > less easy or inevitable.
>
> I'm not clear on what you mean?
Read it again, more slowly.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) The regulations are largely irrelevant. Generally they set a minimum standard, not a maximum one. It is my understanding that UA and AA are open to litigation for their "failure" on the 11th - is that not the case? (...) I'm not clear on what (...) (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
|
|
|
|
