In article .net, L Smith
writes:


The central tenet of Libertarian policy is that we do not INITIATE the use
of
force. Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism are actually
unholy
alliances of government and some individual or corporation. Aircraft
certification is a good example of a group of corporations using the force
of
government to bar competition.

And I suppose the requirements that physicians must be licensed to
practice medicine
is simply the AMA to do the same thing? Meanwhile, the bar exam is just
another
intrusion into paradise to fatten lawyer's wallets? And I guess the
professional engineers
exam is another way the "good old boys club" is maintained? Heaven
forbid that any
of these might require the applicant to demonstrate competence in the
subject.


How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government played no
part
in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put it on the market. Let
the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers, do the rating and let the
individual purchaser assume the risks if he chooses the unrated airplane.

Why stop there? Why should the purchaser even have to demonstrate
competence in
his ability to control that aircraft? After all, if he's willing to
assume the risk, what business
is it of mine?

It's just a thought, but it seems to me that whether or not your
'hero' chooses to buy an
unrated plane, and whether or not he chooses to become competent in the
operation of
that aircraft, is VERY MUCH MY BUSINESS! That guy is going to go buzzing
around
over my head, and when (not if, but when) he gets his ass into trouble,
chances are he's
going to try to take me with him. So if you don't mind, I'm going to
continue to insist
that someone make sure that that plane is airworthy, and that pilot is
competent. I'm also
going to insist that the people who make those decisions are competent
to do so, so that
I don't have to become an expert in everything just to protect my skin.


The fallacy here is that you assume because the private sector is NOT doing
something now, it still would not if the government were not in the way.

I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
really serve?

The insurer might still insure the quack, but at a much higher rate, raising
his costs sufficiently that he could not compete with me, so the marketplace
would cull the quacks. Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.

No license, no government interference, but no loss to the consumer, as it is
just as easy to see if I am insured as it is to see if I am licensed.

The same thing already applies to airplanes. Try to buy a high performance
airplane with a bank loan. They will require insurance for the loan. The
insurer's requirements for time in type, annual experience and recurrent
training are already in excess of what the FAA requires.

Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market
will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG