Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:42:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
792 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. 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...)'
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 should air travel be any different? (a
relevant 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.
I would change this slightly (for my relevant rhetorical example) and say
that those who benefit should pay. I am happy to pay the police to help keep
drunks of the road. I benefit from increased road safety - I pay for it.
Now, to reduce the risks to zero, cars or beer would have to be banned. I
would benefit, but the price (for me) would be too high for me to pay (I
enjoy beer).
Returning to planes. The risk of me being hit by a large plane piloted by a
terrorist are (mercifully) small. The chances of me being in a plane which,
piloted by a terrorist, hits a building are also (mercifully) small – but I
expect higher than being hit on the ground. Having a safe air industry
benefits the economy generally.
So, we all benefit from safe air travel. But some benefit more than others.
Therefore, we all need to pay – but some need to pay more than others. As
with roads, Tax should pay to enforce safety and set standards, but the
users should pay to use the service. However, if an economic case can be
made which proves that investing public money in air safety will boost the
economy and increase tax revenues by a margin which exceeds the investment
- we would be fools to ignore it. Has a CBA been done for “air marshals”?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) Yes, keeping it to traffic. I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Germany, and most of Europe ... ... people pay for the trafic-safe state of their cars themselves ... people pay for their liability insurance themselves ... (...) (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
|
|
|
|
