Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:53:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
822 times
|
| |
|
|
> 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...)
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
... police ensures that general laws as well as traffic regulations
are observed
So, why should air traffic companies be shielded from cost for keeping their
activities reasonably safe, or from the cost of their liabilities when they
fail to "drive" safely?
> > 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.
If I happen to live in a slum, how should I be able to pay for the risk? OK,
this is a mad example, but don't you think that people who have enough money
to *create* new risks should also have enough money to *limit* the risks for
others reasonably?
> I am happy to pay the police to help keep drunks of the road.
Me too, and I would apply the same to the fight against terroissm in
general. But someone who has weapons terrorists are seeking for should still
keep them in a safe place instead of offering them to the terrorists. At his
cost.
But then, maybe, we should also make the alcohol and tobacco industry pay
for the the effect of teir drugs to public safety and healthcare ...
> I benefit from increased road safety - I pay for it.
Yes, and I am driving my bike on that same road, which is why I pay, too. To
some extent, that makes sense, because *everybody* uses roads, and because
there is no way to *not* use them. The same is not true for air traffic.
> 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).
I agree.
> 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.
Yeah, like any subsidy does. Which brings me back to the "privatize the
profits, socialize the risks point ...
> 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”?
This is too profit and economy oriented, and too mono-causal thinking. There
is no god given right to economic growth, not even for air traffic
companies.
:wq
Horst
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay for the policing? (...) I think you should act reasonably. (...) Some say they do already (tax). (...) Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
