|
|
|
|
|
by notahacker
27 days ago
|
|
> 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. |
|
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.