| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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)?
>
> Scott, you haven't shown any such thing. You have shown that _you_ _think_
> they can't be trusted. Based on the fact that some people in the past have
> made mistakes. Since I can demonstrate government agencies that make • hideous,
> disasterous, and corrupt mistakes, does that equally disqualify the public
> sector? Come on!
I was talking more about how the air industry has weakened security
proposals
in the past - not their failure to implement existing regulations.
>
> The real deal is that no private organization can be trusted to act out of • it's
> own best interest. So you think that public organizations should be doing • it.
> The catch is that no public organization can be trusted that same way. Any
> person and any body will act in accord with their perceived best interest. • So
> free marketeers want to set up systems that depend on self interest to • work,
> but make the direction that self-interest takes them covergant with the
> ultimate goals of those who set up the organization.
My worry is that if the market is allowed to dictate airline safety then the
safety may become heavy with superficial safety issues and the ones the
public does not understand fully (say widget maintenance) slip. Safety
should be based on risk assessment not focus groups or public hysteria .
>
> There just is no significant difference at root between a government board • of
> oversight and a corporation. Little things like the nature of their • revenue
> are different, but they're still just groups of people making things go (or
> not). The people making decisions are making them based on self-interest.
I thought the big right wing gripe on this group was that private was
better than public? Now you are saying they are just the same?
>
> If we make the people, whether public or private sector, who have an • interest
> in air(port/line) security operations personally liable for screwing up, • and
> significantly rewarded for doing a good job. Then in theory, they'll do a
> better job.
>
> With which part of that do you disagree? I can see arguments, but I'm • curious
> about which ones are yours.
I just worry about corporations cutting corners for the sake of profit. That
is
what happened here:
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.
==+==
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Because it was expensive. Everything has a price and sometimes we're not willing to pay it. (...) I agree with the final comment. Why would a government agency provide more sure widget maintenance than would a private corporation. (...) I'm (...) (23 years ago, 2-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
