Watch Out For Ron Paul

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
My only contention is that a condition of that service is their requirement that you not bring your hair gel on it.

In essence, no one is willing to offer you the service of travelling by airplane and bringing your hair gel along with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

FALSE.

If that was the condition that the airline voluntarily chose, I would have no problem with it, and choose a different airline if all else were equal. (Incidentally, if they did voluntarily change their policy in between my flight and my return flight, they would without a doubt reimburse me for the items that they let me travel with but not bring back with me. The feds, however, are not so reasonable, because they have no incentive to be.)

People ARE willing to offer me this service. If you take away government, how many airlines do you think would reach the conclusion that stripping customers of their hair gel is really the most efficient way to protect their planes and their business? Hint: Rhymes with hero.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
FALSE.

If that was the condition that the airline voluntarily chose, I would have no problem with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't have a problem with the airline having this requirement.

Your ultimate gripe is that they have this requirement because the Govt. made them have it.

In effect, *you* aren't losing any right.....apparently you think the airline is....

But, have the airlines disputed this demand to not allow hair gel, or have they similarly consented to it as they similarly agree with the logic behind it?

In particular, is their any record of an airline disputing the ban on liquids, and attempting to assert their right to allow passengers to carry them?

And if it makes you feel any better, they've changed the rules since your ill-fated gel siezure....you once again have the "right to bear hair gel on an airplane". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
May I assume that you also have access to www.ronpaul2008.com at home, as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, I'll check it out when I get home.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there is no damage until someone is harmed, thats what you dont understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is entirely correct, because it really depends on what you mean by "damage".

If unconstitutional legislation is passed, is the rule of law at all damaged?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if the legistlation was passed there was obviously belief that there was some chance that it could be slipped past the Supreme Court, constitutional or no, Congress doesnt waste time on something they [b]know will be overturned, but it does waste plenty of time on stuff they're pretty sure will be but hope won't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
So you don't have a problem with the airline having this requirement.

Your ultimate gripe is that they have this requirement because the Govt. made them have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yes. If a private airline came up with that policy on their own, I would just choose another airline if I wanted to travel with hair gel.

[ QUOTE ]
In effect, *you* aren't losing any right.....apparently you think the airline is....

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, I think the silliness of the hair gel example is confusing you from seeing the bigger picture. I have the right to trade with whomever I choose to. If the government made it illegal to sell wheat bread, I would consider this a loss of a right, because I know someone is otherwise willing and able to provide wheat bread for me.

Technically, sure I guess you could say it is the people running the airlines who lost their rights. But since the logic behind why free trade is good is that it makes both parties better off, you can't take one without the other. The reason self-interest is good is that we are all able to benefit from it.

[ QUOTE ]
But, have the airlines disputed this demand to not allow hair gel, or have they similarly consented to it as they similarly agree with the logic behind it?

In particular, is their any record of an airline disputing the ban on liquids, and attempting to assert their right to allow passengers to carry them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, have never looked into it. But why should they have to in order for the point to still apply? I don't fight with the IRS every 3 months when my quarterly taxes are due, but it's not because I approve of having to pay. It is merely because I know it's a fight I can't win. When the mugger asks for my wallet, I give it to him so as to avoid not being shot, not because I approve of his occupation.

Just because they don't necessarily dispute it, it doesn't follow that they agree with it or would do it if they were left to their own devices, as you seem to be suggesting with this question. In the absence of government, do you think any airline would ban hair gel? (Moreover, do you think there's even the faintest of possibility that they wouldn't reimburse me if they did change their policy after my flight and before my return flight?)

[ QUOTE ]
And if it makes you feel any better, they've changed the rules since your ill-fated gel siezure....you once again have the "right to bear hair gel on an airplane". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere, George Washington is smiling.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there was nothing I could do about it (other than surrender my right to travel on an airplane)?


[/ QUOTE ]

The "right to travel on an airplane"?

Do you really think such a "right" exists? Especially if you are unwilling to follow the policies expected as a condition of such travel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Do you really think such a rich doesn't exist??? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

I have the right to trade with whomever I choose to. If the government made it illegal to sell wheat bread, I would consider this a loss of a right, because I know someone is otherwise willing and able to provide wheat bread for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, normatively.

But, we were discussing the explicit rights that have been taken away post-9/11, in the context that some folks have asserted it to be "a bunch".

Still haven't found one though.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
In the absence of government, do you think any airline would ban hair gel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite possibly, given a credible threat of use of liquid explosives against them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...you once again have the "right to bear hair gel on an airplane". [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhere, George Washington is smiling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just letting you know....since you're the one who brought it up as being a "right" that you lost.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you really think such a "right" exists? Especially if you are unwilling to follow the policies expected as a condition of such travel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Do you really think such a rich doesn't exist??? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think you have the right to use someone else's property if you refuse to abide the conditions they place on it's use.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
May I assume that you also have access to www.ronpaul2008.com at home, as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked it out. I like the stance he takes on some issues, namely regarding limited government and adhering the authority of the constitution...but I was left scratching my head a bit on two things specifically:

- His entire education platform seems to center around home-schooling.
- His desire to end birthright citizenship.

Also, where does this choad stand on internet gambling?

[As armas]

Ron Paul is here at the University of Michigan giving a speech in about an hour. Gonna go check it out, very curious as to what the buzz will be and what he will talk about. I'll post back later my observations/impressions.