You. Sound. Exactly. Like. The. Guy. I. Do. Not. Want. To. Listen. To. Talking. On . Your. Mobile. In. Flight.
Useless comment. And I use about 14 minutes a month on my phone. I'm not advocating for my rights, I'm advocating for the rights of individuals and companies to do what they wish with their lives and property.
Oh, the irony. Except U.S. commercial air traffic, which exists primarily of private companies is monitored, controlled, and regulated by the government already. Ever heard of the FAA? Or how the U.S. communications market is regulated by the FCC? In fact the FAA, as a regulatory agent, is the role model for the world. If the U.S. government/FAA bans something, the rest of the world follows. There IS heavy regulation in the U.S. whether you like it or not. There IS heavy regulation in every modern country whether you like it or not. Without regulation, private companies would be ****ing us 10x more than they are now. Government regulation is not always bad and quite often necessary. In general, people don't realize the good things governments do. If you want, I'll give you a list that will amaze you.
No please explain to me what the FAA and FCC are... -___- Feel better? Good.
On to more productive endeavors.
Now, I'm not really sure where you're getting this "FAA is the role model for the world" thing, but just for the sake of argument, let's say that the majority of countries around the world follow our stupid debt laden path to inefficiency and bankruptcy lead.
1. How does this make them or us smart?
2. How does what other people do serve to justify what were doing as moral, just, or correct?
Just as a quick example off the top of my head, I believe Canada is a country that has a privatized air traffic control system, and somehow, I don't see planes falling from the sky. So no, the rest of the world does not just follow whatever stupid authoritarian thought that pops into our heads.
I never disputed that there was heavy regulation in United States. That was the whole point of my original post. The point is that there's way too much government regulation in people's lives. The government does not have the right (morally or constitutionally) to be interfering with people's lives in this manner. The rest of the world is not universally heavily regulated, and I'm sure there are countries you can go to where you can talk on your cell phone on a plane. Judging by the posts in support of regulation like this, I would say that the majority of people wouldn't be stupid or selfish enough to be so rude as to scream on their cell phone in the middle of a flight. Just because there is no regulation preventing someone from doing something, doesn't mean that they're going to do it, it doesn't mean that the government has a right to fill that absence of regulation just because it can get away with it. I see you haven't refuted my quiet movie theater example. Why don't you have a regulation for that? Don't you want your movie theaters to be quiet?
You say that without regulation these companies would be screwing you over even more than they are, but the fact is that they aren't screwing you over at all. When you CHOOSE to take a flight somewhere, you CHOOSE to use their service by your own will. You are valuing their service more than your money, and that's why you were willing to pay them. Don't try to make it out like the screwing you over. You are wrong in trying to do so. The notion that somehow, without regulation of the government, these companies would try to screw you over is absolutely diluted. How exactly do they go about making money by screwing you over? How does screwing you over make their service more valuable to you, and therefore more willing to pay for the service?
To say that companies would somehow "screw you over 10 times as much as they do" without the burden of government regulation is pretty ridiculous. Just because we have an FAA, one FCC doesn't mean that we need, or that it is morally or constitutionally right to have them. It's not like some private institution couldn't be serving these purposes instead of the government. Do you really think the people who work for these government agencies care about who is signing their paychecks? You really think that the only reason airlines don't intentionally crash their $300,000,000 airplanes into the ground is because the government prevents them from doing that? Do you really think the only way for people to be civil on airline is the make sure the government is involved in some sort of capacity? You really saying that people are that self absorbed? Judging by the posts in support of this regulation, it seems to me that people are pretty aware of their surroundings and how they don't want to affect or be effected negatively by those surroundings.
How about that amazing list? Amaze me.
I wish "common sense" actually worked. By your theory we wouldn't need any laws because it is "common sense" to wear a seatbelt, not kill your neighbor, not drink and drive...etc. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who do not have "common sense" or don't act upon it. Even if they are a small minority, we need laws and regulations to keep this minority in check. In the end, we pay the price for their stupidity and ignorance. But that's the nature of laws. We need them in order for society to function.
Not wearing your seatbelt is a decision that affects only you. You have a right to do what you want with you body, so long as you don't initiate force on another human being, therefore you should have the right to decide whether or not you actually wear one. And in many states do preserve you that right.
Making sure you dont kill your neighbor or drink and drive are legitimate functions of government, because you as an individual do not have a right to put other individuals at risk because of your decisions. We do not need ridiculously excessive regulations for society to function. To say we need excessive regulation to live our lives happily, is exactly the same thing as saying we need excessive force to be able to live our lives happily, because people dont know what is best for them, and we need to impose what we think is best for them so that THEN they can be happy. People are NOT better off because of the majority of regulations, they live their lives in spite of the existence of these excessive regulations, and their quality of life is not nearly as high as it would be if the government would just get the hell out of peoples lives. It is THEIR life, NOT the governments. Period.
