Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 02:02:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
601 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> This seems apropos. It questions the current federalization proposal from a
> different angle, the angle of who it is that ought to pay for it.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-klick101101.shtml
"While none of us wants to see events like those of September 11 repeated, it
is difficult to justify a situation in which fliers and non-fliers alike would
be taxed to provide a service that primarily benefits the first group."
Umm, how many of the victims were actually on the planes? How do you[1] choose
who benefits most from the increased security when you've no idea where they
plan(ned?) to strike next? And if you *do* have an idea, shouldn't the people
likely to be in that area contribute something, too?
OK, these questions are rhetorical. My point is that I don't agree the added
security primarily benefits fliers.
ROSCO
[1] Collective you
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) Doesn't matter who benefits. What matters is who is RESPONSIBLE. And that is the airlines. If they're not flying, no potential weapons... So the airlines should pay, or the passengers deriving benefit from travel and thus causing the risk to (...) (23 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
