"he whole premise of the article to which I was replying was that Sept. 11 caused the fall of Libertarianism. I didn't have to mention crashing into the WTC - it was and is implied by the date Sept. 11."
That may have been the premise of the article, but that is not the point of discussion which was, and remains, your comments in Post #13, that arming the PASSENGERS would have prevented the HIJACKING. Not once, before post #206 did you mention preventing the crash. But, laying that aside, you still haven't established that armed passengers would have prevented that crash. Going back to the events of 9/11, it is unlikely that even allowing armed passengers would have prevented that crash. The airline flights in question were specifically selected for a variety of reasons including their destination points and the fact that they had few passengers. This implies that it would have been highly unlikely that many, if any, passengers would have been armed. Even in the event that some passengers would have been armed, all of the hijackers would have been. The few armed passengers would have been at a significant tactical disadvantage, likely outnumbered, and faced with an organized group of determined hijackers with the advantage of surprise. The prospects of the passengers would not have been good. Now you may argue that things have changed or that arming pilots while maintaining the current status of unarmed passengers, but that would be introducing a subject not in Post #13 and would be changing the subject.
"The reference about arming pilots was to post #206. Regardless of where the point was made, the fact is that the government disarmed the pilots, which may very well have contributed to the success of the terrorist attacks."
Introducing a new concept almost 200 posts later is changing the subject.
"There exist steps on the way to a fully Libertarian society. CCW permits and rights recognized for citizens but not aliens, are examples. So too are vouchers, on the way to banishiment of government schools. By your comment, you are now attacking me for supggesting a partially-Libertarian solution instead of acknowledging that I have answered your question as posed."
So, you're only a "partial" or "incremental" libertarian. That's interesting since the libertarian position is that all rights belong to all persons regardless of their national origin. You are familiar with the libertarian platform on unlimited immigration? Surely, you see that by abandoning the complete libertarian position you validate the premise of the article, that libertarian position has failed?
"o, the burden of proof rests on you: You are the one who advocates the revocation of rights to an entire class of people, much like banning the vote to blacks, or banning the printing of newspapers to Jews. RKBA is a fundamental right, just like voting or free speech."
You really should read your posts more completely before you post. You're the one who has postulated the concept of denying rights to a segment of the population. What else do you consider denying RKBA to a class of individuals such as non-citiizens. And, don't claim that I first introduced this. I only asked how you would prevent hijackers from also being armed. It was you that said you would only allow armed citizens. Now how is this consistent with libertarian ideals and how does it differ from the premise of the article that libertarianism has failed?
"If the insurance is required by the government, then the problem rests, again, with government. If people choose to fly it because they would rather be free than insured, then let the market allow it to be so."
You fall into the typical knee-jerk reaction of libertarianism of blaming all problems on the government. Surely, you understand that lenders require insurance on aircraft just as your car loan lender requires insurance to protect their assets? Now would the cost of this insurance to "liberty air" be higher? We can speculate but are unlikely to resolve this issue. But if these costs are significantly higher, then "liberty" air is unlikely to be a marketing success.
"gain, more problems with government, not with freedom. How do armed people travel to Massachussetts, for example? ... The obvious solution in this case is to totally, permanently, boycott MA. Returning to the question of Liberty Airlines, the question is quite similar: government airports and GunFree government-regulated airlines prohibit guns, just like MA sanctions handguns. Given the choice, some may choose to again boycott the government-regulated options. Let the market decide - if only the government could tolerate the possibility."
The issue of restrictive states is significant and I'm glad you recognized this. But blaming all of this on government is a "red herring". Consider the logistical difficulties of running a terminal were some passengers are allowed firearms and some are not depending upon their citizenship (your idea, not mine) and their choice of airline. How do you keep the passengers segregated? If you allow them to mix freely, then you allow the flow of armed passengers to "gunfree" airlines. There realy are significant difficulties. You would almost have to have separate terminals and it's not clear that present airports could provide this.
Still the restrictive gun states do pose some problems. Even the airline pilots association recognizes the difficulties this presents to their armed pilots. I don't have a good way of dealing with these restrictive states since I do believe in states rights.
BTW, FYI, I agree with the total boycott of MA. In fact, I see no personal reason not to boycott any state above the Mason Dixon line.
I am amazed at how many here at FR can believe that the states can constitutionaly restrict gun rights, thus ignoring the clear words of the 2nd amendment. Can you explain these beliefs?
It occurs to me that you are the one trying to change the subject. The subject is the article, which contends that Libertarianism is dead following 9-11, and that only the government can prevent terrorist attacks, etc. I did indeed fail to explicitly mention disarmed pilots in my original post, for which I beg your forgiveness. (In the future should I be sure to mention every single possible argument in my first post so as to not be accuesed of changing the subject?) However, you do not care to discuss this subject, but would rather spend post after post discussing, not government vs. private enterprise, but whether I did or did not change the subject vis a vis arming pilots vs arming passengers.
But, laying that aside, you still haven't established that armed passengers would have prevented that crash.
But I did establish that the only plane that didn't hit its target was the result of passenger action, not governmental action, which is sufficient to refute the author's point.
[The flights were specifically chosen because of] the fact that they had few passengers. This implies that it would have been highly unlikely that many, if any, passengers would have been armed.
That depends on the rate of carrying by passengers. If 50% or even 10% carried, there would still have been a lot of friendly guns aboard. (To say nothing of the fact that the pilots should have been 100% armed.)
The few armed passengers would have been at a significant tactical disadvantage, likely outnumbered, and faced with an organized group of determined hijackers with the advantage of surprise.
But this is exactly the situation of the plane that crashed in PA - where some three (3) actively resisting passengers brought the plane down early.
The prospects of the passengers would not have been good.
Beats killing thousands in a building, no?
Now you may argue that things have changed or that arming pilots while maintaining the current status of unarmed passengers, but that would be introducing a subject not in Post #13 and would be changing the subject.
I'm terribly sorry, oh great masterful rhetoric Nazi. I beg your forgiveness and humbly beseech you to consider arguments that are on-topic but raised following my initial post.
["The reference about arming pilots was to post #206. Regardless of where the point was made, the fact is that the government disarmed the pilots, which may very well have contributed to the success of the terrorist attacks."] Introducing a new concept almost 200 posts later is changing the subject.
1. I am not responsible for the fact that 199 other people posted between my replies. 2. My post was on-topic, and yours, talking about when I raised a second point, isn't. 3. By making this comment, you refuse to answer my argument which is that the article stated that "only the government can answer terrorist attacks" while in fact the government disarmed the pilots, which may well have contributed to the success of the attacks.
So, you're only a "partial" or "incremental" libertarian. That's interesting since the libertarian position is that all rights belong to all persons regardless of their national origin.
Now, you are misrepresenting my position. Even if I were a full-strength Libertarian, I would still prefer a solution that were half-Libertarian to one that is none, because half a loaf is better than none.
You are familiar with the libertarian platform on unlimited immigration? Surely, you see that by abandoning the complete libertarian position you validate the premise of the article, that libertarian position has failed?
LOL!! Now look who is changing the subject. Why don't you ask me about what I think of immigration law on an immigration thread, not on a "government is the only cure for terrorism" thread.
You really should read your posts more completely before you post. You're the one who has postulated the concept of denying rights to a segment of the population. What else do you consider denying RKBA to a class of individuals such as non-citiizens. And, don't claim that I first introduced this. I only asked how you would prevent hijackers from also being armed. It was you that said you would only allow armed citizens. Now how is this consistent with libertarian ideals and how does it differ from the premise of the article that libertarianism has failed?
You asked for several solutions, and I posed several. I don't necessarily endorse all of them equally. Furthermore, how does the fact that government intervention failed utterly to stop the attacks, even when it was clear they were underway, while the actions of individuals were successful, keep from completely destroying the entire point of the article?
You fall into the typical knee-jerk reaction of libertarianism of blaming all problems on the government.
Red herring: I do not blame all problems on government, for example the problem of terrorism.
The issue of restrictive states is significant and I'm glad you recognized this. But blaming all of this on government is a "red herring".
Indeed it is, and it's your's.
Consider the logistical difficulties of running a terminal were some passengers are allowed firearms and some are not depending upon their citizenship (your idea, not mine) and their choice of airline. How do you keep the passengers segregated? If you allow them to mix freely, then you allow the flow of armed passengers to "gunfree" airlines. There realy are significant difficulties. You would almost have to have separate terminals and it's not clear that present airports could provide this.
Well since you claim I'm just a knee-jerk Libertarian, the solution must clearly be government. How about a blue-ribbon panel to study the issue, for $45 million dollars, which will write a report, appoint a commission, and write and lobby for the enaction of thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of incomprensible legislation, "For Increasing Airport Secuirty, And Other Purposes," funded by an increase of taxes, billed as "Investing in Our Skys For The Future." That is the non-Libertarian solution to just about everything these days.