Well, for starters, forcing the airlines to let TSA take over the security was a violation of their rights. Which in turn of course has led to all sorts of violations of our rights, confiscating property, banning people on a “no fly” list from flying, Transport Security Administration has proposed new rules that will require Americans to get government permission 72 hours in advance prior to being allowed to board a domestic flight.
Its hard to not see all the rights our government is violating.
here’s the reposnse:
Its hard to not see all the rights our government is violating.
Except, none of those are rights. We do not have, nor never had, the “right” to travel by air at all. We do not have, nor never had, the “right” to bring any especial item(s) aboard a commercial aircraft at all.
And corporations? Corporations do not, nor never had, civil rights at all. Not to mention, the TSA wasn’t forced on the airlines - it was asked for, and the airlines were the ones doing the asking!
I need some help here, is he not mistaken? I thought the airlines did not ask for TSA?
Explain to him that you mean private property rights. All wealth is created by someone and therefore must belong to someone. You do not recognize the right of some other person or authority to arrogate itself the right to to the productive output of other peoples labor.
The airline industry like any other industry is a creation of the combined labor and savings of individuals. You do not have a right to their product, therefore, you do not have a right to compel them to act against their voluntary choice. Any such act is a violation of property rights.
You are correct in that the TSA violates rights, but he is also correct in that we do not have the right to fly, etc. Rights are negative, nor positive. You should counter, “the TSA doesn’t have the right to accept the airlines job offer.” Let me know if you need an explanation as to why.
yes. it is an individual’s liberty to fly. the airlines are a business, person buys ticket, and goes. free market scenario all around. Daniel meant there isn’t a positive liberty ie. demand, meaning, an individual can’t say, "It is my right to fly. Thus it has to and should happen at all costs, etc…’ No we don’t have the latter, but in liberty in the free market it can happen and initiated coercion against such an event (against any event) is wrong.
The stipulating point is the government security is not private security. Airlines might be asking the government to provide security. Is that true? Ask for a source on that.
If true, then they are part of line leading to D.C., etc… AIG asked for a government bailout and the line where other companies want, want, want from the government keeps extending. cause they think it’s free. they don’t see the secondary consequences. lack the foresight. are stuck in a time preference mentality of now, now, now…
“flying” is not a free gift of nature. It is the product of human labor. Do you think you have a right to that labor?
You have a right to acquire an airline ticket by voluntary means if the owners of the airline so chooses to accept your offer. You have a right to apply your own mind and labor to try to acquire your own airline company and compete with them, but you do not have some automatic right to anything outside the free gifts of nature.
thats what I meant…I have a right to go out and exchange my resources with someone else to fly. Gov. cannot get in the way of that exchange as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s rights.
Isn’t the Gov actually just violating the rights of the airlines, by forcing them to add these excessive security checks and such to their service?
Of course, you could then also argue that the rights of all of us are being violated by regulations that increase the barriers to entry into the airline market…
This whole thread could have been avoided if people would take care to properly distinguish between liberties and rights. Every right has a corresponding obligation, while liberties are simply those actions which are permissible (because they don’t cause harm).
The rights that are being violated are the rights of the airlines and airports to do whatever the hell they want to with their property, as long as they are not harming anyone intentionally with it.
You are demonstrating how useless these terms become for communication when you conflate them like that. Who exactly is obligated to provide you with “liberty” if you have a right to it? That way of speaking doesn’t actually make any sense.
Please, a little more clarity when talking about rights, obligations, and liberty. Doing this one thing would probably do more to make the world more just, than all the natural rights threads on the internet combined.