Subject:
|
Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:22:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > 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?
I think that a security company would typically charge a fee for their
services. And their services could include defense against missile attack. So
it's just a matter of people feeling properly motivated. Some people are
willing to work in high-profile targets and others prefer to work in venues
less likely to be targetted. It doesn't offend me that people working at the
WTC made more money than those working in rural offices because I know they
bore more risk (and had generally higher costs of living -- or substantial
commutes) and so it's just fair.
> Of course, if you start down
> this road it's gonna become an admin nightmare, so why not just a flat fee for
> everyone?
Heck, our IRS is an admin nightmare, so why not just charge everyone the same
amount? Maybe $10K per year.
Like Larry mentioned, Ease and right are not the same. And if central planning
authorities would stay out of it, it wouldn't be an admin nightmare. Everyone
would pay their share through the market.
> > 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.
It isn't equally beneficial to all people. Why shouldn't they pay either to
the degree that they are benefitted, or better yet (by far) pay to the degree
that they want added security.
> 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).
I think the security analysis done by large building owners would determine the
best way to protect their interests. maybe it would be mounting SAMs on the
buildings and maybe it would be buying a share of airport security rights so
that they make sure that things are done right. Either way, shouldn't it be up
to them how they spend their money?
> The important thing (IMO) is that, though the safety checks are performed on
> airline passengers, it's increasing *everyone's* safety.
Not really.
> [1] Or home, though that's probably less likely
For most people. But the number of folks who live in prominent high rises
isn't exactly small either. I listened to a radio piece about the
residents of (that other tall building in Chicago...duhhh...is it Hancock?) who
are nervous about their vulnerability to terrorist attack.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
