RoR: Forum

...not to mention an anti-aircraft missile installation either atop them or located so as to cover the approaches to them

Tom, in principle I can't disagree. But it would be nice if they let Americans carry guns on planes, like they did 30 years ago, so as to make this that much less necessary.

Post 21

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 12:46pm

Jeff Perren writes:

Anthony,
I'm pretty sure your friends on the left won't let them use asbestos.

Many leftists, like conservatives, are horrible on such issues, but all my friends on the left � and I have a decent number � are much more libertarian and reasonable than you might expect.

I know lots of leftists who: (1) oppose social security, (2) oppose direct taxation, (3) oppose restrictions on the right to bear arms, (4) oppose government planning of the economy, (5) oppose insane regulations and, especially, (6) oppose government schooling.

This is because they are actual leftists. As opposed to conservatives on the right and middle-of-the-road socialists, real leftists believe in individual liberty, decentralism, free markets and peace.

Post 22

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 12:48pm

Anthony,

Yes, I am in favor of respecting the right to keep and bear arms on planes (and 9/11 could not have happened had that right been respected).

But, of course, I don't think that the only flying threats are hijacked planes.

Regards,
Tom

Post 23

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 1:57pm

Anthony,
I'm (not being sarcastic here when I say that I'm) glad to hear your report of the sorts of people with whom you are friends.
I'm unclear, based on your description of their views, what would qualify them as 'leftists', but we can leave that aside.

I was, too subtly apparently, referring to environmentalists who -- through completely bogus science of the sort they typically employ -- made the use of asbestos in building construction either illegal or impossibly expensive. My comment was doubly inaccurate since environmentalists aren't even close enough to reality to qualify as leftists.

Nevertheless, I should not have phrased my comment in the form of a personal swipe at you. I really have no idea what sort of people you call friends.

Post 24

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 5:01pm

Jeff,

There are environmentalists and then there are environmentalists. There are those who would like the water, air and land to be as clean as possible, and for polluters to pay for their excesses (which sometimes, under the current system, they don't), while still continuing on with the desirable aspects of the industrial revolution. Then there are those who think a sucker fish is more important than all of humanity, and who would kick a poor farmer off the land where three generations of his family have lived, all for some "endangered species" that arguably doesn't even exist.

Then there are people in the middle.

All it takes with many of the people in the middle is to explain that (1) some pollution is inevitable, unless we want to eliminate fire and set humans back a few million years, (2) pollution should be limited, minimized, and proportionate to human production and wealth creation, and that (3) in most cases, the problem is insufficiently respected property rights and government collusion with the worst polluters.

(Incidentally, the military is the biggest polluter in the U.S. Most lefties will agree that this is bad.)

Nixon created the EPA, and ever since then, environmental policy has been corporate cronyism relying on a fanatical neo-Luddite philosophy to incite the green masses to act as pressure from below. We all suffer, all the while companies like Enron get cushy energy contracts and funnel millions to environmentalist activists to lobby for anti-market (but pro-Big Business) legislation such as the imperialistic Kyoto Treaty.

I try to reach the environmentalist types half way. But if they can't understand the facts even when presented to them � if they still blame the Hooker Chemical company for the Love Canal calamity or fail to see how removing asbestos exposes humans to greater levels of it than leaving it in the buildings would � I usually give up.

Some people respect the Earth and want their fellow humans to do so more, as much as is compatible with human needs and reasonable desires. Others seem to have a false, quasi-religious view of Earth that resembles a hatred of humankind more than a desire for clean progress and sustainability. We shouldn't paint them all with the same brush. People in the first group can often be pursuaded. Those in the second usually can't.

Best,
Anthony

Post 25

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 5:29pm

Anthony,
I agree with almost all your post.

I'm not persuaded that your analysis of Nixon, the EPA, etc is correct, but I want to leave that aside for now.

And may I add that after reviewing earlier posts in this thread, your poetic praise of productivity was exhilarating.

Jeff

Post 26

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 8:08pm

Mr. Knapp, I realize what you're saying and in a better world, you'd be right. But the truth is, its the NYC Port Authority that would probably end up making the final decision on what will be built. The people who actually own it have nowhere near as much to say about it as they did when the towers were first built.

So we have every right to stop the WTC site from being hijacked by the left.

Anthony, you're talking about real liberals, not leftists. Leftists are just wanna be commies without a backbone.

Finally, are ya'll crazy about having guns on airplanes. Terrorism is one thing, personally I'd rather face a boxcutter then some nut what want to kill himself and take the plane down with him. All it takes is one shot and decompression can't be good for my health.

Post 27

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 9:37pm

Explosive decompression due to firearms is a Hollywood reinforced myth.

http://www.anss.com.au/Myths-about-Sky-Marshals.htm
http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2004/2004-01-18.mythbusters_explosive_decompression.html

Post 28

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 10:11pm

All,
Sorry to be late to the party, but did I miss some news about the reconstruction effort at the former WTC site? To the best of my knowledge, the design of the replacement was decided months ago and construction has begun. You all talk as if there is still some choice about the kind of building that will replace the Twin Towers. (Granted there may be some remaining discussion about some parts of the site.)

Can someone enlighten me with a news reference or two, or are some of you just fantasizing about what you would prefer to see.
(I don't say this as criticism of anyone who has expressed their wishes here; just a request for information.)

Post 29

Thursday, June 9, 2005 - 11:05pm

Alright so I won't be sucked out. 1. A bunch of people firing guns in an enclosed area still isn't good for my health. 2. The US dosen't have any governent owned airlines, its their call and they're no reason for them to allow them.
(Edited by Clarence Hardy
on 6/09, 11:05pm)

Post 30

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:27am

Clarence,

You're presenting yourself with a false alternative which makes both choices look bad:

"Finally, are ya'll crazy about having guns on airplanes. Terrorism is one thing, personally I'd rather face a boxcutter then some nut what want to kill himself and take the plane down with him. All it takes is one shot and decompression can't be good for my health."

If the state didn't mandate disarmament of victims prior to letting them get on an airplane, you wouldn't have to worry about the boxcutter (or, for that matter, probably about hijacking at all). It's not even so much that armed passengers would resist hijackers as that terrorists would adopt tactics other than hijacking airliners. Terrorists generally look for soft, rather than hard, targets.

Furthermore, if the state didn't mandate victim disarmament aboard airplanes, the airlines would probably still impose some requirements, such as only allowing frangible ammunition on board (assuming that there would be sufficient market pressure to induce them to allow guns at all).

Finally, even assuming that your fear of decompression reflects the way things actually work (it doesn't), and assuming that non-frangible ammunition would be allowed on board (unlikely), the nut who wants to kill himself is going to find a way. Would you rather he shot an airplane full of holes, unopposed, after sneaking a gun on board, or that as soon as he started waving a gun around and threatening to do so, a non-nut passenger put a bullet in his head?

At one time, it was perfectly legal to carry guns on airplanes, and Americans did so. There were, in fact, a few hijackings. In case you haven't noticed, outlawing guns on airplanes did not eliminate the hijackings. It just guaranteed that if the hijackers could sneak weapons on board, they would have a nice, compliant, disarmed set of victims instead of a set of victims equipped to resist.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 31

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:50am

Thomas proposed as part of his WTC rebuild fantasy:

"On September 11th, 2001, evil men committed a wanton and evil act of destruction and murder on this site. We choose to remember them -- and their victims -- in the manner whereby they deserve to be remembered. This room is a memorial to the innocents who died here. These rebuilt towers are our declaration that we will never quail before evil, bow before death or submit to terror."

I came across the referrence on Knappster. How I wish something like this could take place. But it won't.

Thomas thanks for the glimpse of how it could be.

John

Post 32

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:21am

Jeff Perren:

Anthony,
I agree with almost all your post.

I'm not persuaded that your analysis of Nixon, the EPA, etc is correct, but I want to leave that aside for now.

And may I add that after reviewing earlier posts in this thread, your poetic praise of productivity was exhilarating.

Jeff

Why, thanks! Yes, I am quite a fan of productivity, exchange, and the wonders of the marketplace.

Clarence Hardy:

Anthony, you're talking about real liberals, not leftists. Leftists are just wanna be commies without a backbone.

Well, it was the left that was historically classical liberal, and the right that was royalist and conservative.

On the guns on planes question, I have to say that I'm no more fearful of people having guns on planes than people having them on public streets. It just takes one shot in the head and I'm dead, and that can happen anywhere.

But the right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, and the right to property is the right to property. If American Airlines or Jet Blue wants to let guns on their planes, it is a violation of rights for the State to stop them.

Post 33

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 12:21pm

Actually its the right who are the heir's to the old liberals, even if they don't act like it a lot of the time. Liberals believed in the supremacy of indivisual rights and a minimization of the government. Not that there is a huge difference but who is more like that today?

It is the lefists who are decendents of monarchy and statism. The left believes in the supremacy of the state (monarch)and it being the primary decision maker in our lives. Thats why the left is so strong in Europe, they simply substituted the monarchy for the state. And that why its so weak in America, we rejected the monarchy and we (mostly) reject the left, at least to a much greater extent then in Europe.

As for guns on planes, its simply to great a risk and nowhere near outweights the cost. You won't find any stronger advocate of gun rights then myself, I own four of them and gotten into 'disagreements' with the law over them (Don't worry, I was never arrested :)" My point is there is a reason we have guns, to achive some end. Most noteably is for self defense but if in a perticular circumstance guns are counter-productive, then we shouldn't use them.

Post 34

Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:22pm

Actually its the right who are the heir's to the old liberals, even if they don't act like it a lot of the time. Liberals believed in the supremacy of indivisual rights and a minimization of the government. Not that there is a huge difference but who is more like that today?

It is the lefists who are decendents of monarchy and statism. The left believes in the supremacy of the state (monarch)and it being the primary decision maker in our lives. Thats why the left is so strong in Europe, they simply substituted the monarchy for the state. And that why its so weak in America, we rejected the monarchy and we (mostly) reject the left, at least to a much greater extent then in Europe.

Have you ever read Murray Rothbard's "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty"? If not, I seriously recommend it.

The American Revolutionaries and those sympathetic to them in Britain were considered to be on the Left. Only during the FDR years and early Cold War was the "Old Right" � as they've retrospectively been labeled � more anti-State than the "Old Left." In the last 30 years, Republicans on the Right have been much more statist, at least in their actions, than the Democrats.

The Right in America has historically been for Big Business and Big Government. The American Left used to be for liberty, until it was detailed at the turn of the 20th century.

As for guns on planes, its simply to great a risk and nowhere near outweights the cost. You won't find any stronger advocate of gun rights then myself, I own four of them and gotten into 'disagreements' with the law over them (Don't worry, I was never arrested :)" My point is there is a reason we have guns, to achive some end. Most noteably is for self defense but if in a perticular circumstance guns are counter-productive, then we shouldn't use them.

With all due respect, I can find a stronger advocate of gun rights than you: me. I believe in no gun laws whatsoever � no waiting lists, no registration, no limits on how many of what kinds of guns or ammo you can buy, own or carry, and no government-imposed age restrictions. And I oppose restrictions on guns on planes.

The fact is, guns on airplanes have little cost. Before the 1970s, Americans had guns on airplanes, at little cost. The most recent obvious cost of not having guns on airplanes was the murder of 3,000 human beings on 9/11. Even 100 accidental shootings on planes wouldn't have approached such horror.

And, again, even if guns on planes is a dangerous idea, it is the right of the airline to make that decision. Any restriction on that is a violation of American liberty, individual sovereignty, the free market, and the Bill of Rights.

I guess I'm just a little left of you on this issue. ;)

Post 35

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 11:15am

Saying "anytime, anywhere" without responsibility doesn't mean your a strong defender of indivisual rights (I'm not saying you're not, just that that isn't a good reason). Libertarians believe the same thing but there is no principle behind their beliefs.

I don't know where you got this idea of guns being allowed on airplanes outside then law in the 70's.

Finally, the terrorists didn't have guns on the planes. They had boxcutters and lied about having a bomb on board. The problem was no one wanted to risk themselves over what they thought was a ransom. Why else would they just sit there? The passengers on flight 93 knew what the deal was and they acted. You can't assume it would have been better, if you're allowed to have a gun I'd bet they guy trying to take the plane has one too and he will get the jump on you.

Post 36

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:18pm