Haha that room of no one cares photo actually is pretty funny! I've broken by continued resolution not to spend so much time engaging in discussion on the internet so the point is legit and recognized. But what do oil spills have to do with Tim Martin? Well, the original poster used this story to rag on ALPA. It was quite a pathetic whining episode about journalism integrity and how much ALPA sucks. And usually as in the case of the OP, if he's trashing the big bad union, he's also trashing the big bad government in threads spread all over the place on this board in the conservative so called wisdom. But then when the chips are down, they'll be the first to demand the union do something (reactive rather than proactive). Much like the conservatives will rag on the federal government, but when the oil spills happen, many of them will be calling on the federal government (reactive rather than proactive).
As hard as it is for your liberal mind to comprehend, there is more to politics than liberal and conservative. Libertarians don't fit on the left-right scale of politics that the popular media has deemed all-inclusive. I love how every argument against libertarian principles devolves into a "When the GOP was in power they did the same thing". That's what we libertarians have been arguing for years. Don't assume that when someone is coming from a conservative position that they are a Republican. Unfortunately the myth of a two-party system is taken as truth by the masses.
Fail. Liberal mind? I think not, I'm a moderate, in the middle, and dislike all extremes whether it's bleeding heart liberal or a cold heart conservative . And a true libertarian is very extreme in my book - that's reactionary thinking on all issues whether social or economical. For instance many libertarians would argue to leave drunk drivers alone unless they actually crash and harm someone. Yea, that's real smart cupcake thinking. Why don't we just get rid of all pilot rest requirements along those lines and just wait until more airplanes crash?
Here's a question for you, cupcake: How are those drunk driving laws working out? Let the state revoke a drunk's permit to drive and that'll keep the rest of us safe out there on the streets, cause no criminally negligent sot would dare get behind the wheel without a valid, state-issued driver's license. Yeah, real sharp. Drugs are bad, too you know. There's another war we can't afford to lose. And then there's poverty, bad weather, pirates, and the mosquitoes seem to be especially bad this year as well. Oh yeah, and don't forget the terrorists who would fry us all were it not for the Department of Homeland Security on the job. Of course, we can't realistically expect the state to resolve these and myriad other scourges on society without endowing them with the necessary power and resources to do the job, so just keep handing it over since you don't stand a chance on your own.
It seems comfort, safety, and security are the supreme ends to which you and your kind aspire, and liberty and justice are luxuries you simply can no longer afford when there are so many big, bad monsters out there threatening your domestic tranquility. At least you've got a nice, enlightened balance worked out there in the center, though. And if it should happen that the state does end up intruding too far in any particular extreme even by your standards, you can just say 'Om' and transcend, untouched by the crude unpleasantness of reality when it comes kicking down your door.
As for how I'd handle zero federal aviation regulations, first I'd implement all the known best practices that have been stalled for decades by the bureaucrats and politicians, then I'd take the ocean of money saved by the resulting exponential increase in efficiency and reinvest it in the best talent available on the market, along with the research and development of still better (safer, more efficient, etc.) practices, embarking on a quest to deliver ever higher quality for the best possible price in order to maximize market share, beat the competition, and maintain a healthy and sustainable process of constant, steady improvement (and profit, of course). It's not exactly rocket science.
And I never said we don't need air traffic controllers. I just don't see why they should be government employees or why the state should involve itself in the transportation industry at all for that matter. Do you really believe that the current national air transportation system patched together in the 70's with WWII surplus equipment and technology, brought to you by Uncle Sam, is in any way whatsoever superior to what, say, Boeing, Lockheed, or hell, even Motorola or Apple could produce today? No, you're probably right - if the feds withdrew the whole thing would melt down into utter chaos and we'd all have to build bomb shelters to protect ourselves from all the airplanes falling out of the sky.
Dream land? Dude, what I described above isn't some far fetched fairy tale I pulled out of me arse - it's just basic, general store economics. It scales just fine no matter the size or complexity of the enterprise and, like I said above, it's hardly rocket science. What you refer to as 'this everybody wins super ideal policy' is the way regular butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been doing business with each other in their communities since the beginning of civilization. Why? Because it works. It's sustainable, balanced, centered, one might even say. I don't disagree at all that it's basic, college 101 level stuff, but it's the greedy bastards who deviated from the basic fundamentals (aided and abetted by an unjust regulatory system/process) who ruined this industry in the first place, so maybe it wouldn't be so irrational to give up on the effort to reinvent the wheel and just stick with the round one. Seriously man, if you think my (admittedly simplified) model is extreme, you gotta lay off the Soylent Green.
There are lots of artificially contrived factors hindering the industry from functioning this way right now. Really the only way to unfvck it at this point would be to start over, which would theoretically be doable if the feds were to go away, which of course they never will of their own accord. So really the only value of looking at such theoretical what-ifs is to recognize that an increase of state control and regulatory code is not the solution - it's how we got where we are to begin with.
Now, haven't we had just about enough Tim Martins yet?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)