Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:21:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
783 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
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 the passengers
and the airlines, so why should they have to carry the full cost of it? Are you
saying the average Joe Groundbound is entitled to this extra service for free?
> 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.
And if America had not built so many good targets, it wouldn't be a problem
either. And if the government(s) hadn't p***ed so many people off with their
foreign policy it wouldn't be a problem either. And if Boeing hadn't built the
767 it wouldn't be a problem either. I could continue (and most lawyers
probably would).
When it comes down to it, the main fault lies with the terrorists, and we're
making them pay, but unfortunately that won't pay for the enhanced security.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
