Subject:
|
Re: All important (was: Amtrak Told to Plan Liquidation)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Nov 2001 00:40:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
525 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> Maybe I'm still not following you here, but I would tend to say yes, the
> things that are a RESULT of the building's existance ought to be borne by
> the building users
Not sure here, but are you implying that the existance of the WTC buildings was
less to blame for Sep 11 than the existance of the aeroplanes?
> > Of course, if you start down
> > this road it's gonna become an admin nightmare, so why not just a flat fee • for
> > everyone?
>
> This doesn't follow. Just because some fair thing is hard to do is not an
> argument for doing an unfair thing instead.
>
> > My point is that the extra security is benefiting *all* people.
>
> Yes, true. And the lack of pollution from chemical plants "benefits" all
> people too.
>
> > And as you said
> > above, they're all equally important, so why shouldn't they all contribute
> > equally?
>
> Equal when performing risk calculus does not mean equal costs should be
> apportioned. So no, I did not say that.
>
> > 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).
>
> Let's work that chemical plant analogy and see if you are happy with the
> result of applying your logic (assuming I get it right).
>
> For the purposes of this analogy, let's assume the following
>
> - I own a 1 square mile area on which I built a plant.
> - I have 8 neighbors around me (each in the same 1 mile square plot)
> - My plant generates 10M in revenue a year
> - My plant produces pollution that costs 9M to ameliorate (whether I stop it
> at the plant or whether it reaches my neighbors)
> - My plant has no other incremental running costs (it uses geo energy or
> something)
> - The wind blows and carries the pollution away. It blows randomly so 1/8 of
> it goes to each neighbor.
> - None gets beyond these eight neighbors
>
> Under your calculus, the 9M cost of amelioration ought to be borne equally
> by all 9 of us. That is, each of us ponys up 1M.
If you come to us & say "This polution can only affect you 8 people, and I want
you to pay", we'll then negotiate.
Consider if you hijacked ACME's "super duper wind generation seeds" to go
create the wind. Should ACME be forced to pay for extra security to reduce the
possibility of pollution in future[1]? Of course, they may *choose* to increase
their security, in which case we (the 8) should not have to pay, except via the
increased prices of ACME products, which affects everyone (including you). The
important point here is that the prices should only go up if ACME *chooses* to
increase their security. I think it's unfair for a "Great Wingeing Bully" to
say "I'm gonna come in & secure your plant, you got no choice, and you gotta
pay me".
> This is an AWESOME result, for me. I get 10M benefit and pay 1M cost. My
> neighbours get 0 benefit (unless you say that not getting polluted when they
> did NOTHING to cause the pollution is somehow a "benefit") but pay 1M cost • each.
>
> What a great wealth transfer scheme! As the polluter, I love it.
>
> OK, suppose you say, well, that's not fair, as the beneficiary I should pay
> a bit more, but not all of the cost.
>
> Sure, I'm down for that. Let's only charge my neighbors .5M each... that
> leaves me the other 5M of cost but it's still a wealth transfer of 4M from
> them to me. Not as good as the original 8M but hey, free money!
In all likelihood, because pollution is generally considered "bad", the result
of the negotiation would involve some kind of assurance that you keep it under
control, and pay us compensation if the containment fails.
Just like the terrorists should pay for the extra security. But until that
payment can be extracted (it's being negotiated in Afghanistan as we speak),
why not all pitch in a bit? We're effectively handing a loan to the terrorists,
why should the airlines carry that loan? From a pessimistic POV, it's unlikely
it's ever gonna be paid back, so let's all help out a bit.
Note that if you refuse to pay (analogy), you're likely to face something like
a civilian version of the "war against terrorism".
> The FAIR outcome in this hypothetical scenario is that I pay all 9M and my
> neighbors, who caused *none* of the risk, pay 0M.
No the fair outcome is you agreeing to contain the pollutants, no matter what
it costs, and to pay compensation if the containment fails.
> What's wrong with this analogy?
See above.
> Because if it holds, the cost to non
> travelers for preventing aluminum showers (that's from "Pushing Tin" by the
> way, a very funny but somewhat scary/sick movie) ought to be 0.
I disagree. In the current security situation, *all* residents of *all*
threatened countries are possible victims (including non-travellers). In your
analogy, the possible victims number 8. If you refuse to compensate, the
"victims" will be forced to pay for cleaning up our own back yards[2], but rest
assured you'll be hounded, and it's likely we'll also do whatever we can to
shut down your plant & ensure you can't start up another one. Whether our
efforts are successful or not is yet to be determined...
> The mere
> fact that they are kept safe from things they did not cause and do not
> benefit from is not a reason to make them pay.
Neither did the airlines nor the passengers[3] cause the Sep 11 attacks, IMO.
ROSCO
[1] Assuming they took reasonable precautions to secure their seeds.
[2] They'll probably try & get compensation from ACME, too, but I don't think
ACME should be liable[1]. Of course, if ACME is one of the 8, they have to pay
to clean up their back yard, too.
[3] Nor the aircraft manufacturers, nor the builders / owners / tenants of the
WTC, etc, etc.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
