Subject:
|
Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Nov 2001 00:37:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
487 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:
> > >
> > > 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.
When I lose mine, I generally find them a couple of months later, all mashed up
down the back of the couch 8?)
> 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.
And buildings exist for the convenience of companies to house their workers.
They're not necessary, but they're benefiting from the increased security, so
why not charge a fee on top of the lessees rent? Of course, if you start down
this road it's gonna become an admin nightmare, so why not just a flat fee for
everyone?
Or maybe use some of that frozen terrorist money?
> 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.
My point is that the extra security is benefiting *all* people. And as you said
above, they're all equally important, so why shouldn't they all contribute
equally? Sure, passengers (airlines) should pay their share, and I think I said
somewhere earlier that maybe their "share" is a bit more than others (though
I'm still not sure about this), but if I was a non-flyer, I'd still be happy to
pay some kind of levy (fee, tax, whatever) to be a little more sure that my
work-place[1] wouldn't be rammed by an airliner. Thus also reducing the
financial load on the passengers (airlines).
The important thing (IMO) is that, though the safety checks are performed on
airline passengers, it's increasing *everyone's* safety.
ROSCO
[1] Or home, though that's probably less likely
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
