| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
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. All functions that should be provided in the most
effective way.
The admins of these airports (as with private ones) ought to individually
decide what to do about security. If that means they want to use public
employees, fine but I would not give these employees any more (or less)
power than private security contractors.
> > 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.
I deal with reality every day. I wish you would have a *firm grasp* on
reality, but I digress.
Is there a point here? You don't pay attention, you can't reason from
premises, you won't admit it, and accusing me of squirming is just your
typical smokescreen, or in some cases, your typical spew, to try to dodge
that fact.
> 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
I'm totally comfortable with what I said there and see no contradiction.
Feel free to explain how it shows that I don't understand what freedom
means. Freedom does NOT mean letting those that violate your rights get away
with it if you can help it.
I'd say it's a lot more likely that you have no comprehension whatever of
freedom or rights or the markets or critical thought or a host of other
things. Why don't you go away?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Let me get this straight. You think airline/port security should be set by the private sector (I have shown they can not be trusted) and regulated by lawyers (removing the responsibility from the consumer)? (...) Youch an insult! How adult. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) I'm talking about where the government own the airport. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
