A day latter and the status is updated to the System failed?!? It took are Commander and Chief 3 days to comment on this!

Throw the B**** to the dogs. That goes for ANYONE of the the political class that does not defend the the people.

Would you clarify your post titles?

There is only ONE Napolitano ... and that's THE Judge.

And it takes the pozer it The White House three days to speak. AND HE STILL CAN'T SAY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. Anybody want to bring up Bush reading to the kids again?

Anyone that thinks the government is capable of keeping them safe..is a fool. The fact is...It is not even obligated to do so. If so... one should be able to sue the government for allowing a bomber onto a plane...YOU CANT!!!!...the government has immunity.

If we let the Airline industry handle the security of their aircraft using "private property rights and free market principles"..we could really feel safe boarding an aircraft.

Most likely we would have to endure VERY stringent searches and other security procedures that would be seen as draconian(much worse than today) and the price of a ticket would most likely go up a bit....but...it would be done using a VOLUNTARY system. Those that objected?.....well...You DO NOT have to fly. There are other options to travel.

The marketplace is perfectly capable of providing safety on aircrafts...WHY?? They are "incentivized" to provide safety to their customers and protecting their private property against damage. The profit motive is the incentive for providing safety.... Government and its employees are NOT incentivized. There is NO profit motive to do so!!! The government already has YOUR repeat business guaranteed though the theft of the fruits of your labor and its GUNS to back them up.

Security theater only leads to a fire. Lets hope you are allowed to yell....FIRE!!!!!

(12-28-2009 08:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Would you clarify your post titles?

There is only ONE Napolitano ... and that's THE Judge.

That's the name in the youtube link.

(12-28-2009 09:44 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 08:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Would you clarify your post titles?

There is only ONE Napolitano ... and that's THE Judge.

That's the name in the youtube link.

*THE* Judge

(12-28-2009 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Anyone that thinks the government is capable of keeping them safe..is a fool. The fact is...It is not even obligated to do so. If so... one should be able to sue the government for allowing a bomber onto a plane...YOU CANT!!!!...the government has immunity.

If we let the Airline industry handle the security of their aircraft using "private property rights and free market principles"..we could really feel safe boarding an aircraft.

Most likely we would have to endure VERY stringent searches and other security procedures that would be seen as draconian(much worse than today) and the price of a ticket would most likely go up a bit....but...it would be done using a VOLUNTARY system. Those that objected?.....well...You DO NOT have to fly. There are other options to travel.

Public safety is not an area you want "free enterprise". There are plenty of people willing to offer you "protection" for the right price. That's not the role of the free market, it is precisely the role of the gov't.

(12-28-2009 09:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:44 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 08:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Would you clarify your post titles?

There is only ONE Napolitano ... and that's THE Judge.

That's the name in the youtube link.

*THE* Judge

I think Janet looks a little more masculine, but then again I think (s)he could beat Mike Tyson in a street fight.

Yes, but not as masculine as Janet Reno.

(12-28-2009 09:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, but not as masculine as Janet Reno.

Janet Reno was a man's man, right there with John Wayne.

(12-28-2009 09:57 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, but not as masculine as Janet Reno.

Janet Reno was a man's man, right there with John Wayne.

I've heard rumors that she was Hillary's man for a while.

I also heard from one of Hillary's former law partners, back in the 1980s, "The Clintons' concept of marital fidelity is that they don't both chase the same woman at the same time."

(12-28-2009 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Janet Reno was a man's man, right there with John Wayne.

I've heard rumors that she was Hillary's man for a while.
[/quote]

I wish I didn't read this post. The visual of Hillary with a strap-on will haunt me for a long time.

(12-28-2009 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:57 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes, but not as masculine as Janet Reno.

Janet Reno was a man's man, right there with John Wayne.

I've heard rumors that she was Hillary's man for a while.

I also heard from one of Hillary's former law partners, back in the 1980s, "The Clintons' concept of marital fidelity is that they don't both chase the same woman at the same time."

I heard that's how the Clinton's met, they were ****ing the same woman.

(12-28-2009 10:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Janet Reno was a man's man, right there with John Wayne.

I've heard rumors that she was Hillary's man for a while.

I wish I didn't read this post. The visual of Hillary with a strap-on will haunt me for a long time.
[/quote]

Ewwww, you didn't have to share that picture with everyone.

(12-28-2009 09:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Anyone that thinks the government is capable of keeping them safe..is a fool. The fact is...It is not even obligated to do so. If so... one should be able to sue the government for allowing a bomber onto a plane...YOU CANT!!!!...the government has immunity.

If we let the Airline industry handle the security of their aircraft using "private property rights and free market principles"..we could really feel safe boarding an aircraft.

Most likely we would have to endure VERY stringent searches and other security procedures that would be seen as draconian(much worse than today) and the price of a ticket would most likely go up a bit....but...it would be done using a VOLUNTARY system. Those that objected?.....well...You DO NOT have to fly. There are other options to travel.

Public safety is not an area you want "free enterprise". There are plenty of people willing to offer you "protection" for the right price. That's not the role of the free market, it is precisely the role of the gov't.

I agree with you Torch... on almost everything...NOT this. I have TOTAL faith in the marketplace...ZERO faith in government keeping me safe in this area. Government has NO incentive or liability to do so. The marketplace has BOTH. I have NO idea what the marketplace would put into place to insure safety of air travel....I just know that those in search of profit would insure that the people that used that method of travel would see that it is safe. I can not betray the crux of my central belief principle....The marketplace will provide.

Torch...If you believe that the government is ever competent enough to keep you safe in air travel?....Well....I am surprised and confounded. I have valued your opinions in the past and thought you valued the marketplace as much as I do in addressing the problems of society... I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

(12-28-2009 11:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Anyone that thinks the government is capable of keeping them safe..is a fool. The fact is...It is not even obligated to do so. If so... one should be able to sue the government for allowing a bomber onto a plane...YOU CANT!!!!...the government has immunity.

If we let the Airline industry handle the security of their aircraft using "private property rights and free market principles"..we could really feel safe boarding an aircraft.

Most likely we would have to endure VERY stringent searches and other security procedures that would be seen as draconian(much worse than today) and the price of a ticket would most likely go up a bit....but...it would be done using a VOLUNTARY system. Those that objected?.....well...You DO NOT have to fly. There are other options to travel.

Public safety is not an area you want "free enterprise". There are plenty of people willing to offer you "protection" for the right price. That's not the role of the free market, it is precisely the role of the gov't.

I agree with you Torch... on almost everything...NOT this. I have TOTAL faith in the marketplace...ZERO faith in government keeping me safe in this area. Government has NO incentive or liability to do so. The marketplace has BOTH. I have NO idea what the marketplace would put into place to insure safety of air travel....I just know that those in search of profit would insure that the people that used that method of travel would see that it is safe. I can not betray the crux of my central belief principle....The marketplace will provide.

Torch...If you believe that the government is ever competent enough to keep you safe in air travel?....Well....I am surprised and confounded. I have valued your opinions in the past and thought you valued the marketplace as much as I do in addressing the problems of society... I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Fo, it depends on what you mean by these words.

The gov't has done a respectable job keeping us safe, from attack and air disasters. When it comes down to it, we've had very few incidents, and I'll be N America travels by air more than Europe.

But, that doesn't mean the gov't is perfect. Nobody or institution is perfect. Could the gov't do a better job? Sure. But they still won't be perfect.

Would private enterprise be perfect? No. Nobody is perfect. Would they do a better job than the gov't? I don't believe they would. As you described we'd have just as much of a tyrannical, draconian system w/ private enterprise. Only there'd be even less accountability.

Frankly, there are a lot of analogies w/ insurance here:
First, the gov't would impose security coverage. They should demand rates of incidents (1 incident/5 years, something like that) but they won't, they'll demand # cameras, # and type of sensors, etc. Leaving private enterprise no ability to innovate or adapt, all while keeping prices high.

THis is just like insurance. The gov't doesn't say "give fair coverage in your contracts, and you can have a variety of contracts." THey tell insurance companies what coverages they must include, and that they can't compete across state lines...so in the end you have no competition, and strict mandates...no ability to innovate or adapt, all while keeping prices high. That leads Mach to say he'd rather have a gov't bureaucrat than an insurance company. The problem is that they're the same person. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat. You and I agree that this is wrong, so I'll pass up this scenario.

What you're saying is that airlines can do what they want to protect their property...and that of their passengers. The problem here is that it will get abused. It's well known that bag handlers steal a great deal of things from passengers. Given the "right" to search every bag...you'd have things be worse. Rude or surly airline workers already have the authority to mistreat passengers...this would grow too. And you'd have an awkward situation involving civil and criminal complaints...the courts would be even more flooded. But even worse, in the end you'd still have airlines w/ bureaucratic regulations, nothing would be better.

Could competition come along? Sure, but it's slow in big business. That's a flaw in pure free-market thought: markets do NOT react instantaneously. Furthermore, there are limits to supply. There are only so many airports, and so many routes.

Southwest is a good example here. Even though they remain profitable, and are growing, it has taken a long time for their innovations to penetrate the market. And they don't fly every route, so people are still stuck w/ traditional carriers, who often point blank refuse to improve because they have a monopoly. Even if that monopoly is threatened by competition...that threat is on the order of years or decades, so they don't change.

Security would just be another factor where rules would be enacted, then be a long time to change.

A further complication is that the rules will vary among airlines. This will lead to further hassles and frustrations. Passengers will be more confused and irate, travelling will be even less pleasant.

So in the end, the situation will not be better for the passenger. It will be as bad or worse. Things might be cheaper...or not.

(12-29-2009 08:59 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 09:02 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Anyone that thinks the government is capable of keeping them safe..is a fool. The fact is...It is not even obligated to do so. If so... one should be able to sue the government for allowing a bomber onto a plane...YOU CANT!!!!...the government has immunity.

If we let the Airline industry handle the security of their aircraft using "private property rights and free market principles"..we could really feel safe boarding an aircraft.

Most likely we would have to endure VERY stringent searches and other security procedures that would be seen as draconian(much worse than today) and the price of a ticket would most likely go up a bit....but...it would be done using a VOLUNTARY system. Those that objected?.....well...You DO NOT have to fly. There are other options to travel.

Public safety is not an area you want "free enterprise". There are plenty of people willing to offer you "protection" for the right price. That's not the role of the free market, it is precisely the role of the gov't.

I agree with you Torch... on almost everything...NOT this. I have TOTAL faith in the marketplace...ZERO faith in government keeping me safe in this area. Government has NO incentive or liability to do so. The marketplace has BOTH. I have NO idea what the marketplace would put into place to insure safety of air travel....I just know that those in search of profit would insure that the people that used that method of travel would see that it is safe. I can not betray the crux of my central belief principle....The marketplace will provide.

Torch...If you believe that the government is ever competent enough to keep you safe in air travel?....Well....I am surprised and confounded. I have valued your opinions in the past and thought you valued the marketplace as much as I do in addressing the problems of society... I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Fo, it depends on what you mean by these words.

The gov't has done a respectable job keeping us safe, from attack and air disasters. When it comes down to it, we've had very few incidents, and I'll be N America travels by air more than Europe.

But, that doesn't mean the gov't is perfect. Nobody or institution is perfect. Could the gov't do a better job? Sure. But they still won't be perfect.

Would private enterprise be perfect? No. Nobody is perfect. Would they do a better job than the gov't? I don't believe they would. As you described we'd have just as much of a tyrannical, draconian system w/ private enterprise. Only there'd be even less accountability.

Frankly, there are a lot of analogies w/ insurance here:
First, the gov't would impose security coverage. They should demand rates of incidents (1 incident/5 years, something like that) but they won't, they'll demand # cameras, # and type of sensors, etc. Leaving private enterprise no ability to innovate or adapt, all while keeping prices high.

THis is just like insurance. The gov't doesn't say "give fair coverage in your contracts, and you can have a variety of contracts." THey tell insurance companies what coverages they must include, and that they can't compete across state lines...so in the end you have no competition, and strict mandates...no ability to innovate or adapt, all while keeping prices high. That leads Mach to say he'd rather have a gov't bureaucrat than an insurance company. The problem is that they're the same person. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat. You and I agree that this is wrong, so I'll pass up this scenario.

What you're saying is that airlines can do what they want to protect their property...and that of their passengers. The problem here is that it will get abused. It's well known that bag handlers steal a great deal of things from passengers. Given the "right" to search every bag...you'd have things be worse. Rude or surly airline workers already have the authority to mistreat passengers...this would grow too. And you'd have an awkward situation involving civil and criminal complaints...the courts would be even more flooded. But even worse, in the end you'd still have airlines w/ bureaucratic regulations, nothing would be better.

Could competition come along? Sure, but it's slow in big business. That's a flaw in pure free-market thought: markets do NOT react instantaneously. Furthermore, there are limits to supply. There are only so many airports, and so many routes.

Southwest is a good example here. Even though they remain profitable, and are growing, it has taken a long time for their innovations to penetrate the market. And they don't fly every route, so people are still stuck w/ traditional carriers, who often point blank refuse to improve because they have a monopoly. Even if that monopoly is threatened by competition...that threat is on the order of years or decades, so they don't change.

Security would just be another factor where rules would be enacted, then be a long time to change.

A further complication is that the rules will vary among airlines. This will lead to further hassles and frustrations. Passengers will be more confused and irate, travelling will be even less pleasant.

So in the end, the situation will not be better for the passenger. It will be as bad or worse. Things might be cheaper...or not.

You make some good points and I would never call any solution to security as perfect since the methods of those wishing to do evil evolve and must be adapted to.

One of my problems with the governmental solution is that the Airline is legally responsible for failures in a system that they do not control. If a bomb explodes on a plane...Who is responsible for damages? Of course..I cant sue the government... so that leaves the person causing the damage and the airline. The airline is the one with the money so they end up being the one to have to pay for damages caused by a system they have no control over. How is this fair?

I still believe that through competition the carriers would make a safer system. It likely would be more stringent than what we currently have and passengers would likely be subjected to things that they might feel uncomfortable with. That is fine with me... since I voluntarily contracted with the airline and agree to their safety regulations. Those that do not like those regulations....well...drive the car...take a train,boat...whatever.
Like any other contract both sides must agree to adhere to the terms of that contract(what ever they are) and both sides benefit from that contract. I get to my destination safely and the airline gets a portion of the fruits of my labor in exchange. I do not have to enter into a contract that I feel is unfair or does not benefit me.

I look at this more as a private property issue and the right of the airline to protect its property against damage. As it stands now, the carriers don't have control of the most crucial part of security... the screening of passengers that use their services.

Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.