English airport owners force out a museum

[bdk]

BDK, Please lets not get into a huge political argument again?

Yes, you are correct. This whole discussion has become pointless.

Political science major? What school did you go to that said that anarchy was a branch of libertarianism? Next you'll say that the Nazis are a long lost branch of the Republican party...

[muddyboots]

Anarcho-capitalism as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

That was stolen from wikipedia because I don't want to go do the research. This ain't a term paper. But you get the idea. The logical outcome of the libertarian mindest is anarchy.

Nazi's and Republicans may act in a similar manner in many ways when it comes to being slick propagandists who are demonized by the left wing. But if you look at their core beliefs they are nowhere near similar.
Nazis were anti-parliamentarian, and supported ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, were opposed to economic liberalism and political liberalism, had a racially-defined and conspiratorial view of finance capitalism, anti-communism, and totalitarianism.
The Republican party generally tends to be anti parlimentarian, (believing in a strong president and a weak congress). They are opposed to political liberalism, they are strongly anti communist. There are similarities there. Are they large enough to be called nazia? Not to my mind.
Although I heard George Bush secretly has a swastika tattoed on his scalp under his hair. Dick Cheney was going to do it as well, but he was afraid the metal in the ink would screw up his pace maker
Just kidding, of course.

I was at Tulane University when I was a poly sci major. Hrdly a hotbed of liberalism.

[Broken-Wrench]

James you have got to cool down your going to blow a gasket...

[bdk]

Anarcho-capitalism as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.

But you get the idea. The logical outcome of the libertarian mindest is anarchy.

Anarcho-capitalism, per the definition you have provided, builds from the libertarian nonaggression axiom. This is like saying that the Branch Dividians are the same Christians as Catholics. Modern libertarians believe in "Objectivism" as their philosophy. The government needs to exist to protect people's rights through the courts, provide for the national defense, enforce contracts, etc. The government is not to be the "safety net" for the populace. Charity should come from the heart and private charitable organizations like churches, not the government. There should be no Department of Education, Food and Drug Administration, etc. These entities should exist in the same manner as trade organizations like the American Medical Association and Underwriters Laboratories.

Back on topic- the government does not create anything. People create things. The government controls by making laws and regulations, which by their nature prevent people from doing things. The government through taxation prevents me from spending as much of my money as I would like on aviation, or causes me to waste money by artificially inflating prices by meddling with the economy which determines the true value of goods and services. Government merely interferes with freedom. Some is righteous like protecting private property (including the right to treat your own body as you wish), others are not righteous like the creation of the "great society."

Anyhow, it is clear that we share different idealogies on the value of government and its place in society. I suppose we should leave it at that and not bore everyone else. I do value your right to your opinion though and in the end we are both right!

[bdk]

James you have got to cool down your going to blow a gasket...

Maybe this venting for him is cathartic?

[mustangdriver]

I think you need to travel to rural Nebraska. The infrastructure there IS general aviation with only a few exceptions. The one or two commuter flights daily to some airports is insufficent to maintain their viability without general aviation.

Uh huh. And where did the vast mojority of the men and women who fly and work as mechanics, air traffic controlers and flight line attendants get their training? Why is AvGas and Jet fuelk commonly avaiable? Name ONE aspect of the GenAv community and I can link it by one or two steps to ComAv either in direct expenitures or indirect results of.

I suggest you do some reading on libertarians as well: http://www.theadvocates.org/

I suggest you do yourself. I was a political scie major before i became an anthropologist. Anarchy is indeed a sub branch of libertaianism. Sort of a fundementalist. or extremist, but a libertarian non the less. You can even look it up. Only don't use a libertairan source--they tend to be skittish about admitting it

As James suggests, you are describing anarchists who are not even remotely similar (either that or ALL the founding fathers were anarchists as well).

Erm...not at all.

Do you really hate your government? I don't, that IS anarchy!

Certainly I hate much of what it does. I'd be insane not to. But I also love it. I ove what it has done in terms of supporting scientific, medical, electrical, power, education, atc. Do I like that it has help corporations dominate and subjugate peope by invasion, or that it has in the past supported slavery, and racism? No. I'd have to be insane to.

How is a doctor brought to you by the government?

He was most likely put through medical school on loans or grants of the government. His hospital is largely funded by the government. Research into the medicine he practices is paid for outright by goverment. All of the medicine he uses to heal you was partially finded by governemnt in terms of reeearch. And finally, almost all of the basic knowledge of modern medine in America was orgamized, funded, and researched by governemnt doctors doing so at the behest of the government at the trun of the century.

You must be kidding? All our food was developed by the government

No. But most of it was subsidized by our government. The roads and rail it is got to you by is paid for and kept up by our government. So unless you plan to start a garden, I suggest you keep paying your taxes.

Why is it that there's always someone who wants to ignore what I say in order to make thier own point? BDK, Please lets not get into a huge political argument again?

Are you with US Airways Sorry but I have been flying since I was 13, never even flew on an airliner until I was 18, learned to fly at an airport KBVI that has a 4,510 foot runway, and jet fuel, and never had or ever will have airline service into it. Where did my instructor learn to fly? As Pauly Shore would say, "In the Army". Plain and simple, the right to be in the air does not belong to the airlines. General Aviation is going strong. Can the airlines say the same?

[muddyboots]

You're misssing my point, duderino
I'm not saying that ComAv is the end all be all. Simply that most of the assets you enjoy as a gen av flyer are supported by the governments commitment to ComAv.

There are a variety of reasons for that, but it all really boils down to the need to have air poiwer (transport) in place in time of war. Every time we have a big kick off, com air assets are leased to beef up military transpoort. I've flown Commercial Airlines a jillion times to various places for the Army. And the training that is subsidized by the government for CamAv people is done so to support this need.
As I said before, if ComAv didn't buy so much fuel, the price would increase dramatically for Gen Av flyers. Mind, I am not talking out my hat. This is War College stuff. They learn a great deal about national assets and how they can be used during times of war, and all of his is background for their studies. ONly reason I know any of this is I edited my boss's work so he wouldn't look like an idiot.
Most of the assets Gen Av has access to are indeed subsidized by the government, throughComAv. Helicopter pilots and mechanics especially come from the military, and many end up in the reserves. Again, the cost of development for civilian aircraft are subsidized by the government- one reason being that the govt has a large supply of helicopter assets...just in case. The reason they do this is simply that the time needed to tool up a bunch of blackhaws if we sudddenly had a large loss of them would leave us vulnerable, especially when we depend so heavily on them.

Remember the big bailout a few years ago, after 9/11? It wasn't just that the govt wanted to spur travel and invigorate the economy. Air transport is considered a national asset. Always has and always will. So no matter how moronic they are, the feds will always be tehre to throw money at any issues that ComAv may develop.

I guess it isn't so mauch that ComAv is so wonderful that you guys would be stranded without them. Its more complicated than that. If the government wasn't subsidizing them, obviously they wouldn't have so much power to dictate prices and screw around with schedules so much. Customers would simly quit using them. But for now, most of the R&D and infrastructure is supported jointly by the Govt and ComAv.

anyways, I'm going to pull out of this trhead, I think. I'm starting to think you guys think I'm somehow a biugs upporter of commercial airlines. I'm not. I hate them as much as you do. I just think they've tied themselves into the air economy tha to get rid of them now would be catostrophic for you guys. Which stinks because they should be deregulated AND desubsidized. They'd die a quick death, but it would clobber Gen Av.

[muddyboots]

Anarcho-capitalism, per the definition you have provided, builds from the libertarian nonaggression axiom. This is like saying that the Branch Dividians are the same Christians as Catholics.

Right. Which is why I was saying that it's the far out weirdos who tend to be anarchists. AIt is indeed libertarianism. The Branch Dividans started out Christians but ended up all crazies. Not really a good comparison. I'm not sure I want to make a religous one,to avoid being insulting. It's kind of like...if you boiled all of the water out of orange juice you'd be left with nothing but acid, which would not be very pleasan to drink, right?
I
'm not so much anti libertarian as I am pro government. We need some level of regulation and protection (police, military, fore department etc) And in line with that, we need some regulation of aircraft. Is the ComAv industry the right way to go about it supporting an active Air Community? I doubt it. But it's what we've been stuck with...personally I would rather see small puddle jumpers make a comeback. but it's just cheaper to herd people onto those massive flying turds and squeel like pigs when knucklheaded business practices screw up the airline industry like always happens.

[T33driver]

Cryin' shame about the Bournemouth Aviation Museum.

[RickH]

What museum ? Was there something in here about a museum ?

[muddyboots]

yeah. Commercial Aviation bought it out and used the assets to make a roadside dinosaur themed amusement park.

[RickH]

Leave it to th paleontoligsts to screw up a good thing !