Sorry, but viewing a centralized food- or aviation- safety body as an undesirable thing is (charitably) bugshit crazy.
How do you possibly imagine a scenario in which a privatized, ad hoc approach to either of these scenarios could lead to anything other than greater expense and increased disaster?
Honesty, I don’t understand how some people manage to adhere so tenaciously to ideological approaches in spite of the obvious requirements of the problem in front of them.
Free-market Air Traffic Control makes as much sense as socialized fast food.
For food safety, you honestly think that fraud legislation is sufficient to protect the public interest? Labelling laws and standardized food safety regulations are an unreasonable restriction on freedoms?
It’s beliefs like this that put libertarian candidates on the fringe, and nobody blinks when they’re ignored. Your ideals are all well and good, but anyone with a lick of sense knows that electing someone who honestly thinks that way will lead to annoyances like planes falling out of the sky and devastating e. coli outbreaks.
I didn’t want to go this way in this thread, as it’s kind of a hijack. But when I heard Paul expressing this view, and then heard he was being marginalized after the debate, I thought, “Ok. He’s batshit crazy anyway.”
I don’t know about expense, but I don’t want government interfering in anything unless it is absolutely necessary. I don’t see anything about routing planes which requires force, and thus, I think it should be privatized. If the cost goes up, then its value to society is obviously greater than it’s currently being assigned.
Nice soundbyte. But care to explain why a private organization can’t route air traffic just as well?
I could see a case for labeling laws for ingredients.
You don’t honestly believe that having the government routing planes instead of Boeing is all that’s keeping planes in the air, do you?
Oh, who gets to pick Boeing? What it United and American decide to set up competing systems? Who ensures that Jet Blue pays any attention to any of them?
Use of force? Damn straight this requires force. Not military force, but economic at least, and police powers (arrest and incarceration) may be needed too.
I just threw out a name. It could be anyone, you’re correct.
I imagine the way it would work is private airports make the airlines play by their rules if they want to land at that airport. Anyone not following the rules is unwelcome to land at that airport and will be punished with trespassing or some similar crime. A standardization of protocol would most likely develop out of necessity.
Try again.
Economic pressure is there regardless and I never advocated the abolishment of the police force.
This is not all about takeoffs and landings. This is about air traffic, issueing instructions for aircraft separation, rules for required maintenance, standard frequencies for commuications, etc? And the economic pressures I’m referring to are not marketplace pressures, they’re about fines and penalties (up to and including imprisonment if necessary) to enforce the rules.
Thes are things that simply cannot be left to voluntary cooperation.
Glad to see the police will still be around on Planet Forumbot, but who makes the rules they enforce?
Think any airline with a penchant for crashing their planes would survive in a real market? No, the economic advantage of providing a safe experience is very strong.
That would also probably develop out of necessity. Communication is vital to air travel and no one is going to decide “fuck you Jet Blue, I’ll land wherever I want, and if I hit your plane, whoops.”
I don’t see much of a problem with the American system of government. Only my world would have a much stricter constitution.
No. The right to use force except in self-defense is solely restricted to the government. I imagine that property rights function the same way now, in that your use of your airspace extend to your need for it. You wouldn’t have any more right to shoot down planes in your airspace then as you have right to shoot down planes now.
I must apologize. I have hijacked this thread, and though I stand by my statements, that’s not what this thread is about. And in general I share your concern about the media marginalizing candidates who might be good choices for president, though I don’t think Paul is one of them.
They all seem from mild to far left to me, with the one exception of Fox.
Wasn’t there even some statement made by members of the democrat party back during some of the debates to this effect? Something like “well, we’ll let them (the righties) have Fox”? I can’t remember where I read it though, sorry I don’t have a cite, merely a question.
It seems so. The only choices are Coke or Pepsi. Dr. Pepper drinkers can go pound sand. There aren’t enough of us to matter.
Last time around, my Dem. friends told me I had to give up third party pipe dreams/protest votes and ‘hold my nose and vote for Kerry’ because it really, really mattered this time. It did, but it wasn’t enough help, as it turned out.
To help Ron Paul, Libertarians would have to register en masse as Republicans and vote in the primaries. Just as their own candidates are getting enough recognition to be listed in some state’s primaries.
I tend to like the Lib candidates, despite my recognition for the need and even desirability of some government regulation, due to the paucity of Pro-Choice, Pro-2nd Amendment candidates. Both at the same time, anyway.
Cheeze Louise, but you’re right, jsgodess. He’s all over the map, but he did vote for the partial birth abortion ban, and that’s him right out, then. That was probably the sop that let him fly under republican colors. But he also voted to decriminalize transporting a minor from a state that disallows abortion to one that allows it, against making a federal crime to harm a fetus during the course of a crime, and for stem cell research. NARAL gives him 0% anyway.
I think you mean Democratic Party. The “democrat party” construction is awkward, incorrect, and makes you sound like a dick.
I’m sure you can find someone who self-identifies as a Democrat and has made a dipshit statement like that. I can most likely find a statement from a self-identified Republican to the effect that Fox is a “loyal Bushie” or something similar. But it would mean nothing more than that people sometimes say stupid things, and we should take them with a grain of salt.
Now, if say the guy who runs the company were to be a big fan of one party or the other and make public statements that his network was being run in a way that promulgated a certain agenda, that would mean something.
PAUL/MALAKAR '08!
While I actually agree with his alternative to the popular “They hate our freedom!” theory (which has the advantage of being blindingly fucking obvious) it’s probably poison at the polls.
It’s not just some isolated “self-identified Democrat” saying that Fox News leans hard to the right. MoveOn.org got 280,000 people to sign a petition asking the Democratic Party to step away from the Fox.
If “the guy who runs the company,” Roger Ailes, conflates Barack Obama with Osama Bin Laden, would that make it seem that he’s the GOP’s man? He did.
You don’t honestly believe that having the government routing planes instead of Boeing is all that’s keeping planes in the air, do you?