Subject:
|
Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:50:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
461 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > How do you carry such a morbid calculus (which is more important, the
> > passengers of the vehicle or the population at large? What a question! They
> > all are!). Ick.
>
> Sorry for bringing it up again, but this is exactly why I think it's unfair to
> lumber plane passengers with the entire cost of "global security".
Sorry if this is a repost. I lost my cookies somewhere. Anywho... I don't
think we got to closure on this (or much of anything else, lately) so don't
be sorry.
I am not sure I follow this argument. You are going to have to elaborate. I
will counter by saying this:
If there were no air passengers there would be no airlines and no airplanes
flying around. Airlines exist for the convenience of the consumers who use
them. Unless your argument is that we somehow NEED airlines even if they are
uneconomical, to the point where we should subsidise them (via involuntary
wealth transfer), I see no reason not to make airlines shoulder the whole
burden of the consequences of their existance. (note in a free market that
"airlines" == "the passengers" since costs are passed on to the consumers of
the goods)
Now, if your argument is that we subsidise road transport so we ought to
subsidise air and rail too, "to be fair" I will counter that I'd rather not
subsidise *any* of them. All (the users of them) should bear their true
costs. That includes pollution, safety, damages to property, security
implications, etc.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
13 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
|
|
|
|
