Fly the Family-Friendly Skies?
---
In a recent "Questions" post I asked:
Even conceding the notion of "airline as common carrier," with all that such a designation implies regarding non-discrimination and such, since when is there:
--A "right" to fly on an airplane at all?
--A "right to fly with small children and not have their 'fragile little eyes' offended by the in-flight entertainment"?
This is the same kind of anti-capitalism, anti-property, anti-rights, warm-fuzzy-feeling nanny-statism underlying such insults to liberty as smoking bans in bars and trans fat bans in restaurants (not to mention the ever-popular, if ever-unconstitutional, bans on violent video game sales to minors). The only "right" implicated here is the right of a private firm to run its private business as it sees fit (i.e., to give customers -- rather than malcontent activists -- what they want and are willing to pay for).
If there is a demand for "family-friendly flights," then airlines will offer them. Compare the presence -- or absence -- of "G-rated flights" to, e.g., Chuck E. Cheese restaurants or Disney Cruise Line. Not to mention, of course, JetBlue's "screen in the headrest" cabin model, which is increasingly being imitated by other airlines and will likely become universal in a few years' time, making all this activist legislator chest-thumping moot anyway.
Demand creates it own supply. And a lack of demand explains -- and vindicates -- a lack of supply. No meddling by self-appointed "I'm smarter than you" politicians, who are merely pandering to a handful of whiner-brat parents, is required or justified.
Whether in the air, in the kitchen or behind the counter: Leave business to businesspeople.
Should airlines show R-rated movies on flights with children on board?Now two activist legislators have answered, "No!"
Prompted by parents' complaints about sex and violence in inflight movies, two congressmen introduced legislation Tuesday calling for airlines to create kid-friendly zones on planes.This is, of course, utter nonsense.
"The airlines have chosen to put our children in a situation that I don't feel comfortable with," said Rep. Heath Shuler, a North Carolina Democrat.
He and Republican Rep. Walter Jones, also from North Carolina, call their proposal the Family Friendly Flights Act.
"This legislation will be one avenue to help parents take back their right to determine the appropriateness of the content to which their children are exposed," Jones said in a statement.
Even conceding the notion of "airline as common carrier," with all that such a designation implies regarding non-discrimination and such, since when is there:
--A "right" to fly on an airplane at all?
(Note: A "right not to be discriminated against" is not the same as a "right to be accommodated in every way under every circumstance.")--A "right to fly with small children at all"?
--A "right to fly with small children and not have their 'fragile little eyes' offended by the in-flight entertainment"?
This is the same kind of anti-capitalism, anti-property, anti-rights, warm-fuzzy-feeling nanny-statism underlying such insults to liberty as smoking bans in bars and trans fat bans in restaurants (not to mention the ever-popular, if ever-unconstitutional, bans on violent video game sales to minors). The only "right" implicated here is the right of a private firm to run its private business as it sees fit (i.e., to give customers -- rather than malcontent activists -- what they want and are willing to pay for).
If there is a demand for "family-friendly flights," then airlines will offer them. Compare the presence -- or absence -- of "G-rated flights" to, e.g., Chuck E. Cheese restaurants or Disney Cruise Line. Not to mention, of course, JetBlue's "screen in the headrest" cabin model, which is increasingly being imitated by other airlines and will likely become universal in a few years' time, making all this activist legislator chest-thumping moot anyway.
Demand creates it own supply. And a lack of demand explains -- and vindicates -- a lack of supply. No meddling by self-appointed "I'm smarter than you" politicians, who are merely pandering to a handful of whiner-brat parents, is required or justified.
Whether in the air, in the kitchen or behind the counter: Leave business to businesspeople.
Posted by Kip on
26 September 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
