... Why would libertarians respond to a government mandated enforcement mechanism by telling people to build an airline that is still going to be subject to government regulation?
That's like saying that Nick Fuentes got a search warrant on his house, and that lolbertarians would respond by telling him to build his own house. ... That's not going to do anything, and isn't related to anything either.
Depends on which “the no-fly list” we’re talking about, which is why people should really be more specific.
There’s speculation that he’s been put on an industry no-fly list due to mask wearing-related “offenses” on a previous flight that he tweeted about. If so, that would not be “government mandated”.
I kinda understand where the OP is coming from but the argument is nonsense. In a free market companies would tend not to bar people from doing business with them. That would be stupid. It might happen - companies are often stupid - but there would be many more airlines to choose from. (so less likely they'd all follow the same no-fly list)
(I'm NOT a "free market is perfect and solves everything" type, but it's going to work better than anything we have now.)
Commercial air travel is one of if not the most heavily regulated industry in existence. As such it is subject to significant regulatory capture and cannot be considered a "free market". This is something a lot of "liberaltarians" or "lolbertarians" (not accusing you or the GP of this, but I have had to make this point to some people IRL) forget.
That said, even in AnCapistan airlines would have insurers who would probably have all number of policy riders that set standards for passengers who were an increased safety risk and whose passage on an insured aircraft would invalidate the policy. "Rule by Actuary" is a problem I've yet to see an AnCap give serious treatment to.
... Why would libertarians respond to a government mandated enforcement mechanism by telling people to build an airline that is still going to be subject to government regulation?
That's like saying that Nick Fuentes got a search warrant on his house, and that lolbertarians would respond by telling him to build his own house. ... That's not going to do anything, and isn't related to anything either.
Depends on which “the no-fly list” we’re talking about, which is why people should really be more specific.
There’s speculation that he’s been put on an industry no-fly list due to mask wearing-related “offenses” on a previous flight that he tweeted about. If so, that would not be “government mandated”.
If that were the case, TSA wouldn't have been involved at all
Black market airlines now.
I kinda understand where the OP is coming from but the argument is nonsense. In a free market companies would tend not to bar people from doing business with them. That would be stupid. It might happen - companies are often stupid - but there would be many more airlines to choose from. (so less likely they'd all follow the same no-fly list)
(I'm NOT a "free market is perfect and solves everything" type, but it's going to work better than anything we have now.)
Commercial air travel is one of if not the most heavily regulated industry in existence. As such it is subject to significant regulatory capture and cannot be considered a "free market". This is something a lot of "liberaltarians" or "lolbertarians" (not accusing you or the GP of this, but I have had to make this point to some people IRL) forget.
That said, even in AnCapistan airlines would have insurers who would probably have all number of policy riders that set standards for passengers who were an increased safety risk and whose passage on an insured aircraft would invalidate the policy. "Rule by Actuary" is a problem I've yet to see an AnCap give serious treatment to.
Reject insurance.
Embrace black market airlines.
Well, obviously some would, but it's rare. Some people are genuinely worth banning.