For Republicans, the moral of the San Bernardino shootings is clear: an excuse to ramp up state violence against Muslims and immigrants.
For Democrats, the moral of the San Bernardino shootings is equally clear: an excuse to ramp up state violence against gun owners and would-be gun owners.
Here’s a radical idea: when you see an act of mass aggression against the innocent, maybe don’t decide that the moral is to imitate it.
Is it state violence when a government outlaws possession of assault rifles on a passenger aircraft?
Yes, of course.
It’s fine if the airline wants to ban them (as I assume most airlines would anyway). But if there were an airline that didn’t want to ban them, how would it be any of the government’s business to intervene?
Say the airline that didn’t want to ban them was the only one the impoverished could afford. In that case market forces or business power (independent of state power) coerce the poor into injustice. If a government’s business is to protect rights, and the poor have a right to travel in non-reckless ways, then it’s the government’s business to intervene.
In other words: what if an inherently accountable system behaved unaccountably, and an inherently unaccountable system behaved accountably? THEN what should we do? 8^O
More like: what if a praxeologically accountable system was thymologically impracticable, and a praxeologically impracticable system was as accountable as thymologically possible? THEN what should we do?
Can I be a part of this awesome society in which the impoverished can nonetheless afford air travel?
And what if the impoverished who can afford air travel are the ones who want assault rifles on the plane? Then should the government force the airline to allow this?
Reckless endangerment is and ought to be a crime no matter who wants it. But it is especially immoral when the invisible fist of a market forces a group into endangering situations where good economic luck protects other groups. You can argue that anarchy would minimize economic luck, but in terms of literary psychology or thymology, I believe that’s highly unlikely. Even less likely than would a democratic republic with good-willed leaders. Granted, under indifferent, let alone ill-willed, leadership, a democratic republic may be inferior to anarchy in the short run. A system capable of installing good-willed leadership is, I believe, superior in the long run.
“Reckless endangerment is and ought to be a crime no matter who wants it.”
So it should be illegal for military planes to transport weapons? Or only civilian planes?
“You can argue that anarchy would minimize economic luck”
I have.
“A system capable of installing good-willed leadership is, I believe, superior in the long run.”
When all else fails, fall back on the Führerprinzip? No thanks.
Is the Führerprinzip compatible with a democratic republic primed by a constitution that, among other things, virtually guarantees infighting at the highest levels?
Transportation is hardly the issue. The issue is the unregulated physical possession of weaponry in the aircraft cabin of commercial passenger flights. How is that not reckless endangerment? And, with regard to military planes, why would it be “reckless” when the possessors are exhaustively trained and necessarily assume the (minuscule (compared to citizen possession)) risk?
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.