Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: What about, say, the FAA?  (Read 6230 times)

David

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • I'm a llama!
What about, say, the FAA?
« on: October 06, 2003, 03:06:22 pm »

The FAA is a federal program that sets regulations, backed by the full force of the federal government, to provide a common protocol for air traffic.

What is the libertarian view of organizations like the FAA?  Should it's regulations only apply to interstate air traffic?  If so, what happens when an interstate 747 encounters an in-state private plane?  What protocol governs their interaction?

After visiting this site, I think I'm realizing that my political bent is not Republican, but Libertarian.  While I can certainly sympathize with the aims of the FSP, I'd like to know where ya'll stand on scenarios like this - because there are probably others.

Thanks :)
Logged

cathleeninsc

  • Guest
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2003, 03:50:18 pm »

Where's varrin when you need him? He could probably answer better than I could. I don't think any of us want willy-nilly air traffic. But I am also not convinced that what we have is as effective or as efficient as it could be.

Cathleen in SC
Logged

WalterGR

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2003, 04:19:11 pm »

I think the FAA is a "necessary evil".  I doubt a private company/organization would be able to set flight paths, landing patterns, approach vectors, regulate flight heights, etc, etc, that the FAA does.  Especially with the thousands of flights per day we have now - and doubly so with foreign flights.

Besides, turn it over to a private organization, and you'll soon have controllers speaking all sorts of languages - because a private organization wouldn't be able to enforce the "English Only" rule.
Logged
A vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.
FSPer, NAHC Life, NRA Life, SASS Life, JPFO, TSC

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2003, 05:49:40 pm »

I think the FAA is a "necessary evil".  I doubt a private company/organization would be able to set flight paths, landing patterns, approach vectors, regulate flight heights, etc, etc, that the FAA does.  Especially with the thousands of flights per day we have now - and doubly so with foreign flights.

Besides, turn it over to a private organization, and you'll soon have controllers speaking all sorts of languages - because a private organization wouldn't be able to enforce the "English Only" rule.
Aren't private companies all ready doing that in the UK with compeating air traffic controls, airport security and airport ownership? The English only rule is international for the most part and is not set by one government but a association body of over 100 national governments, the first treaty signed I think before WW1. Hasn't various standards being in place and enforced since the Middle Ages and Merchants law?
Logged

LifeAndLiberty

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm a llama!
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2003, 05:06:00 am »

What is the libertarian view of organizations like the FAA?  Should it's regulations only apply to interstate air traffic?  If so, what happens when an interstate 747 encounters an in-state private plane?  What protocol governs their interaction?

Air traffic control in my view is far too important to entrust to a "government."
Logged

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2003, 08:49:57 am »

What is the libertarian view of organizations like the FAA?  Should it's regulations only apply to interstate air traffic?  If so, what happens when an interstate 747 encounters an in-state private plane?  What protocol governs their interaction?

Air traffic control in my view is far too important to entrust to a "government."
                                                                           
Didn't Canada contract it's air traffic control to a private company or companies.  My mind flashes back to pieces of info I read when after 9/11 the Federal government jumped at the chance to federalize airport security, comments were flying around by liberals I know that airport security is run by the national governments in Europe. Come to find out this was far from true and I seen a report that Tel Aviv, Isreal airport's security is operated by a private company.
Logged

SteveA

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2905
  • Freedom - Are you man enough to handle it?
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2003, 10:21:20 am »

There is a need to coordinate air traffic and the aerospace has a great interest in making flight safe (accidents cost a lot in lives, insurance and number of fliers ... look at 9/11).  Something similar to the FAA would have envolved in the airline industry anyway but and it's hard to say exactly what form it would be.  I'm sure it would've started with a few airports connecting their individual control systems together, and expanded from there.  I believe the FAA also creates much of the safety requirements for aircraft construction and servicing.

My personal opinion is that a private alternative would have provided similar safety at a lot lower cost and the aerospace industry in general would be larger and more efficient.

(I wonder if 9/11 would've happened if a few citizens had been asserting their 2nd Amendment rights ... )
Logged
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren.  Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere.  Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile.  But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #7 on: October 08, 2003, 12:42:56 am »

I should point out that the FSP will have no impact on or interest in the FAA, since that's federal level, and we're looking at state level.
Logged

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #8 on: October 08, 2003, 09:14:17 am »


(I wonder if 9/11 would've happened if a few citizens had been asserting their 2nd Amendment rights ... )

Oh yeah.  8)

Yeah, Canada's privatized their air traffic control stuff and it works better than our's. John Stossel did a news report on it....now where did I leave that tape?   ???
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.

WalterGR

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #9 on: October 08, 2003, 09:32:13 am »

The "English Only" rule might be due to international agreements - but would those agreements hold up if it were a private company?

IE: the first time a (say) Hispanic wasn't hired because he didn't speak English, and he sued the company.  Their defense would be the "English Only" agreement.  Would that hold up in our court system?

Let me clarify my position.  It's that the FAA should set the standards, and provide dispute resolution - but private companies should provide services.  Airport Security, Flight Controllers, etc should all be employed by private companies.  Heck, there could even be private companies to investigate accidents (heaven forbid).
Logged
A vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil.
FSPer, NAHC Life, NRA Life, SASS Life, JPFO, TSC

telomerase

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Live Free Or Die
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2003, 07:30:36 pm »

 The current "Security" merely guarantees success for terrorists armed with plastic weapons (remember, they STILL haven't allowed most of the pilots to arm themselves). And the current system of human controllers giving verbal orders is 30 years out of date. They pretend that GPS wasn't invented.

So I agree that everything should be private, but it won't look anything like the current "traditional" airport rituals.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2003, 07:32:12 pm by telomerase »
Logged

FTL_Ian

  • FSP Participant/First 1000
  • Golden Porcupine
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2712
  • Former FSP, still in NH.
    • Free Keene - NH's Liberty Activism Destination
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2003, 08:56:13 am »

     The FAA is useless.  It is because of the FAA, DOT, and various licencing laws appliciable to the transportation industry that we don't have cheap flying cars yet.

Regards,
Ian
Logged
150+ Reasons to Move to Keene : http://move.FreeKeene.com

Join the *other* liberty activism forum in NH: http://forum.shiresociety.com

Terry 1956

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2889
  • I'm a llama!
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2003, 03:59:43 pm »

The "English Only" rule might be due to international agreements - but would those agreements hold up if it were a private company?

IE: the first time a (say) Hispanic wasn't hired because he didn't speak English, and he sued the company.  Their defense would be the "English Only" agreement.  Would that hold up in our court system?

Let me clarify my position.  It's that the FAA should set the standards, and provide dispute resolution - but private companies should provide services.  Airport Security, Flight Controllers, etc should all be employed by private companies.  Heck, there could even be private companies to investigate accidents (heaven forbid).
I'm not saying it would for sure but private aggrements on standards are possible and have existed for hundreds of years. so  I don't see the point of a  government run agency in this case.Least of all not a Federal agency, if it is going to be a government agency, then it should probally be a state agency, the various state agencies could co-operate outside the federal government. For similar reasons I don't see the need or desirablity of a FBI.
Logged

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2003, 02:56:15 am »

What is the libertarian view of organizations like the FAA?  Should it's regulations only apply to interstate air traffic?  If so, what happens when an interstate 747 encounters an in-state private plane?  What protocol governs their interaction?

Air traffic control in my view is far too important to entrust to a "government."

oh my!  'too important'?  hmm, boy, I think good food distribution across the nation so that all cities get adequate food supplies is pretty darned important too!  And no way would I even begin to think that the government should meddle with our incredible food distribution process any more than it already does.  Here is a hint:  the 'more important' an activity or endeavor is, the more reason to get it into private hands.

The FAA and the myraid of other 'alphabet soup' government departments which exert an EXTREME amount of control in our daily lives without even allowing us (you and I) the ability to vote or govern the limits of their powers is just plain scarey.  Our country would be virtually unrecognizable from its current form (in an incredible positive way) if we didn't allow the government to create all these different divisions/departments/agencies to regulate our lives and livelihoods.

Here's a method I use to analyze a situation, lets take the FAA:

(1) Identify the 'Problems' that this agency/law/whathaveyou is suppose to 'fix

in regards to the FAA, it is suppose to make flying 'safer' for the public at large

potential problems: who defines what is an acceptable level of 'safety'?  What grants the FAA the magical power to determine the 'safest' methods over others?  Once a 'safety' regulation is in place, it is stagnant, almost unchangeable even as technology progresses and peoples values change, including the 'safety' value.

(2) If these 'problems' that an Agency/department/law is so important to the public, what prevents the public from providing a solution in the Free Market?

ok, you are concerned with safety in flying, probably not just when you are actually up in the air, but you also don't like the thought of crazy nimrods losing control of their planes and crashing into your brand new home.  Is this concern of yours an isolated thought or do others agree with you?  how many others, alot?  So, if you and alot of others agree that flight Safety is an important issue, you have just identified what is known in economics as a 'demand'.  The true role of entrepeneurs and private businesses is to satisfy consumer 'demands'.  If there were no FAA, and you needed to take a plane trip somewhere - would you choose an airline which had a high incidence of accidents or fly with one that might be more expensive, but is known for being accident-free (safe), having larger seating room (better service), flying to more destinations than other airlines?  the solution is pretty obvious... the airlines that provided EXACTLY what the consumers desired would succeed and the others would quickly fail.  what about aircraft maintenance?  Is this important to you and others?  Well, how would you go about checking on these things?  If making sure that aircraft are routinely inspected and maintained is important enough to influece flying decisions then 'quicker than lickitty-split' you will find independant private companies vying to put their 'stamp of inspection' approval on an airline.  Airlines would not be forced to have such inspections, BUT, would you choose to fly on an airline that choose NOT to get any independant inspections done on its planes or would you go with the one that might cost a bit more for the ticket , but has 'approvals' from highly recognized inspection firms?

(3) Does the Free market version 'solve' the problem better or worse than the government version?
Airlines and airline inspection companies would have the utmost incentive to meet consumer needs/desires, head and tails above any governmental agency.  wouldn't there be bribery, you ask?  probably, but when bribery was discovered it would have swift and far-reaching consequences for those involved in contrast to when bribery within government is discovered.  For the most part, the government is immune to lawsuits and all manner of civil/criminal legalalities which businesses face and deal with.  if an FAA inspector gets bribed to pass a certain airline and then gets found out, he will probably lose his job, maybe his boss too... but then, it will be 'business as usual' and it will happen again with a different inspector or airline.  If a private inspection company inspector was discovered taking a bribe... all hell would break loose: First, competing companies would play up the fact that their inspectors don't take bribes, the company in question would suffer great reputation loss and perhaps go out of business (who wants an 'ACME airline inspector seal of approval' if the public does not believe or value it?).  other airline inspection businesses would see this poor company go out of business and say, "WOW! We need to pay attention to this - how do we insure that our inspectors don't take bribes?" and viola - the free market quickly fixes the little hole in the dike and we ALL benefit.

ACK! I have typed too much - must be going, sorry to cut this short...
michael
Logged
nothing to say...

LeopardPM

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2248
Re:What about, say, the FAA?
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2003, 12:59:19 am »

oops, it has been pointed out to me that I mis-read your post... dang, wasted a good, long rant for nuttin'!!!

oh well, hope it made some sense anyways!
Logged
nothing to say...
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up