Subject:
|
Re: More on Airport security.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:49:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
906 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> > 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?
If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay
for the policing?
> 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 think you should act 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 ...
Some say they do already (tax).
>
> > 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.
Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but that is
another issue.
>
> > 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.
You agree 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.
>
> 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.
It is the world we live in Horst. I'm not anti-economic growth, I just want
to spread around a little and make it sustainable. I know sharing gives some
people nightmares, but I can live with that.
>
> :wq
?
Scott A
>
> Horst
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
| (...) No, since I neve had a beer with you, I can only agree that banning beer or banning cars seems exaggerated. (...) The world we live in is based on mono-causal relationships? I don't see it that way. And I am probably more pro sharing than a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
