[notahacker]

> In addition to all the other things I pointed out, there's a very simple and obvious difference between this and the airplane case: a person choosing to drive drunk imposes some risk on everyone else who uses the same road they do. But a person choosing to fly on an unsafe airplane imposes no risk on anyone but themselves; their choice doesn't force anyone else to fly on the same airplane.

There is a very simple and very obvious similarity which is that people do not consent to be hit by drunk drivers or poorly maintained aeroplanes. Hence we regulate.

Honestly, I find it unfathomable that you could write so many words across two comments trying to reinvent aviation safety from first principles and not grasp this.

[pdonis]

> people do not consent to be hit by drunk drivers

True.

> or poorly maintained aeroplanes

But that's not something a person can affect by their choice of whether to fly on such an airplane, which is what we've been talking about, assuming the airplane is already in operation. That risk is being imposed by the airline that's skimping on the maintenance.

People can affect this indirectly, by choosing not to fly on unsafe airplanes, which will cause airlines that try to operate such airplanes to go out of business (as well as manufacturers who try to build them). Indeed, that's what I was describing when I described how a free market would result in unsafe airplanes not being flown.

Your position, in the other subthread where I responded to you a little bit ago, appears to be that people are too stupid (excuse me, "unworldly") to be trusted to regulate such things as I've described in a free market, so governments have to regulate instead. Have I got that right?

[notahacker]

> But that's not something a person can affect by their choice of whether to fly on such an airplane, which is what we've been talking about

No, that's something you are talking about as you avoid the actual argument that badly flown and maintained aircraft represent a threat to people that didn't make an informed choice to fly on them.

One could also argue that drink driving regulation is unnecessary because in a free market nobody will choose to drive drunk, and this would be somewhat less stupid than arguing that it's unnecessary to regulate aviation safety because it would be impossible to operate an airline without equivalent or better safety records in a free market.

> Your position, in the other subthread where I responded to you a little bit ago, appears to be that people are too stupid (excuse me, "unworldly") to be trusted to regulate such things as I've described in a free market, so governments have to regulate instead. Have I got that right?

My actual argument is that badly flown and maintained aircraft represent a threat to people that didn't make an informed choice to fly on them

But yes, governments also protect people whose confidence they know better than the stupid experts is exceeded only by their ignorance.

[pdonis]

> the actual argument that badly flown and maintained aircraft represent a threat to people that didn't make an informed choice to fly on them.

So our airline safety regulations have nothing to do with the safety of the, um, passengers?

As I said in another of our subthreads (and you agreed), evidently we don't have enough common ground to have a useful discussion. Have a nice day.

[notahacker]

There is indeed no common ground to be reached with somebody who is not only unable to grasp a concept as simple as regulations simultaneously protecting more than one group of people, but thinks repeatedly failing to understand something so basic is an actual gotcha...

I'd say it was like arguing with a toddler, but that's unfair because I'd expect many toddlers to understand "even if people want to fly really dangerous aeroplanes, that might not be fair on who they crash into".