Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:22:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
760 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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.
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 exist should pay.
Or are you saying that I should pay for the cost of your country cleaning up
its coal plants because it's me that gets the acid rain, being downwind?
(rhetorical example...)'
No. The person causing the risk or problem should pay to ameliorate it or
guard against it. No matter who it is that benefits. Anything else is
malfeasance.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) would (...) choose (...) Then why did Klick make a point of it? The current service being provided (air travel) benefits the passengers and is already paid for by them (generally). The proposed service (enhanced security) does not only benefit (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) Larry, this is a stark example of how your Libertarianism takes ideas out of context. You have some idea that rights and risks adhere to individuals. But that is no longer the essential principle in our present context. Rights have already (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) Rather than comparing it to coal plants, how about keeping it within the realm of transport? Most reasonable people accept that roads should be policed to ensure that they are safe where driver/owner safety considerations are concerned. Why (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-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
|
|
|
|
