From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: "Helpful" government (was Re: Private Discrimination)
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:20:02 GMT

lp> Loren I. Petrich
gs> Gary Strand
js> Jim Stiver

js> It is theoretically possible to be legally ignored to death under a lib-
js> ertarian government.

gs> ...and we know that we can be "helped" to death by a non-libertarian gov-
gs> ernment. For example, the new FAA rule that states that young children
gs> must be in a child seat on the plane. Therefore, the parents must go to
gs> the expense of another ticket, since airlines are not going to give away
gs> seats for free, generally. This can be expensive. Ergo, the parents choose
gs> to go a cheaper route, say, driving. Driving is much more dangerous than
gs> flying, ergo, more kids will be in cars than in planes. Ergo, more kids
gs> will die in auto accidents. Net result: more kids' deaths. What a helpful
gs> rule!

lp> But where would the little kids go if not in a special seat?

  Their parent's laps.

lp> If the plane starts hitting some turbulence or has a rough landing, the
lp> poor tyke can get quite a bounce. Now is _that_ very safe?

  As I recall, the number of kids' deaths that could have been avoided if the
  kid was in a child seat on the plane was <10 over a decade. Obviously, the
  FAA failed to do a life/life analysis of their new rule.

lp> And where would the child seat go on an airplane, anyway? Yup. You got it.
lp> One of the regular seats.

  Exactly. Airlines charge for each seat used. If the kid sits on the parent's
  lap, no charge.

lp> There is a third option: going by train. Although a train will be in motion
lp> longer than an airplane will over the same route, trains are generally
lp> cheaper, and often more conveniently accessible. And if they are fast
lp> enough, trains can successfully compete with airplanes on relatively short
lp> routes. Airline travel has actually declined on some routes served by
lp> high-speed trains like the French TGV.

  All fine and good. However, trains just aren't in the American mindset as
  an acceptable form of travel for significant distances. Parents, having
  decided that buying an extra plane seat for Junior's child seat is too
  expensive, are much more likely to decide to drive the car than take the
  train. That's probably what I would decide if I was going from here (ie,
  Denver) to Chicago, LA, New York, or whatever. Common use of trains to
  get from A to B is much more prevalent on the Northeast corrider than it
  is anywhere else.

lp> But I doubt that Gary Strand would have a very high opinion of Amtrak...

  When it starts running in the black on a continuous basis, I'd say sell it
  and start saving us taxpayers money. Heck, sell it now, and save us money
  now. Why should *I* subsidize it, when a private company can run it just
  as well, or better, than the Feds?


--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush