Bible-beater pilots

Wdtabor wrote:


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.

Rich Lemert

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

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.

Hey Don, do you think we should have gone into Iraq?

In article , "John Harlow"
writes:


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.

Hey Don, do you think we should have gone into Iraq?




Yes

This is another place where I disagree with many Libertarians, and my opposing
opinion has been published in the national newsletter.

And I really don't care if we found WMD's or not.

There are two world views that support entirely different paths. One is that we
are engaged in World War 4 (WW3 having been the cold war) against
Islamofascism. Islamofascism is not a country, it is a politcal movement that
has the support of some fraction of the Moslem world in numerous Moslem
countries.

If you are of the view that we are at war with Islamofascism, as I am, then
there is no need to justify Afghanistan, Iraq or any other location the war
takes us, independently, any more than we needed independent justification to
invade Tunisia or Normandy in WW2. We fought the Nazi's where we found them and
we have to fight the Islamofascists and their supporters and hosts wherever we
find them now.

If you do not see us as being at war, then it makes sense to analyse each move
independently rather than as part of a larger strategery.

Choose your world view. After that, either Iraq is a brilliant stroke of
strategery or it is an unjustified invasion of a soveriegn nation.

I believe we are at war, and that if we fail to win it decisively now, our
grandchildren will wind up trading nukes with a much larger and more advanced
Islamofascist threat.

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

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.

Amen, Brother!

(Whoops...back to religion... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.


You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article ,
(Teacherjh) writes:



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.


You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.


If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.

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

If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.


Sometimes not accomodating the stupid leaves the stupid in control, and then we
are all worse off.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Wdtabor wrote:

In article ,
(Teacherjh) writes:



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.


You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.


If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.

Does consumer/public protection always equal "accomodating the stupid",
though?

Actually, what I wonder is what's in it for the *insurance companies* in
this regulation-by-insurance scheme. They don't seem to gain anything by
it except additional trouble.

Let's stick with dentists for a bit, seeing as we got their insurance
involved earlier in the thread. Currently, AFAIK, if you apply for dental
malpractice insurance, and can't produce a gov't approved Dr of Dentistry
certificate, the company is going to say, "Talk to us after you graduate,
kid."

After all, the certificate shows at least basic competence in dentistry. I
bet that most new dentists pay nearly the same insurance rates, and that
those later go up/down depending on how much you use your insurance to
protect yourself.

Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
competent now?

The company now has to somehow test the competence of everyone who applies
to get their dental practice covered, or risk going broke paying out
malpractice claims. This means additional expense & complication for the
insurance company. Why would any sane, minding-the-bottom-line company
WANT this libertarian ideal to take root?

What if a dentist wants to change insurance companies? Sooner or later
you'd wind up back at a universally accepted standard of training, and
recognition of that with... wait for it... certificates/degrees etc in
dentistry.

Don't forget that most professional colleges, associations, etc started
out as self-regulating bodies to maintain/improve the respectability of
the profession. The AMA & co sought to reduce the number of quack doctors;
more recently we've seen midwives, massage therapists & other
para-medicals organize in their sectors.

Ultimately, I think Libertarianism is based on economic & sociological
theories that are just as flawed as those in Marxism...

To drag this back on topic (sort of...) swap "pilot" or "aircraft
designer" for "dentist" in my example above.

Brian.

Brian Burger wrote:

Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
competent now?

In fact, why bother to get insurance at all? Just pick up a fake insurance
certificate at the nearest printer and hang it on your wall to reassure the
s^Hu^Hc^Hk^He^Hr^Hs^h patients. There's no regulation that requires it to be
*real*, is there?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.