In a comment to Burt’s recent post about the FAA’s recent decision to allow the use of electronic devices turing takeoff and landing, I made this joke:
if this leads to cell phones being approved for airline flights, I can only hope that the rules for justifiable homicide are modified accordingly.
Just a reductio, of course. No one could ever be that insane, because obviously trapping people in a small seat with some idiot next to them yammering for hours would violate both common decency and the Eighth Amendment.
The Federal Communications Commission said Thursday that it will consider rules that would allow air travelers to make calls and use their cellular data plans once a plane reaches 10,000 feet. Restrictions would remain for takeoffs and landings.
A modest proposal: each passenger gets the choice of using either a cell phone or a sledgehammer. (The latter is for use on the offending cell phone. Of course. Probably.)
If cell phone conversations on planes are the price of freedom, then freedom can bite me.Report
Headphones, my friend. Because some people have no consideration for their impact on those around them, we’ll all soon be flying with headphones or earbuds screwed as tightly as possible into our ears, creating tight little psychological cocoons for all our cross-country trips.
But think of the upside…no more enforced separation from the OT!Report
Oh i know about headphones. i have them in my ears with music on loud at the gym. If the choice is going deaf or listening to teen girl chat, samoan guy making family dinner plans or doughy business guy discussing business, i know i’m going deaf.
Well yeah i guess, i would have to upgrade from my 6 year old flip phone though.Report
Oh i know about headphones
Well, given your remote location, I wasn’t sure. 😉Report
I just figured Alaskans stuffed their ears with beavers or something.Report
Regardless of whether it’s a good idea, if it doesn’t affect safety, there’s no justification for the government getting involved. Airlines would still be free to ban or regulate cell phone use aboard their planes, just as restaurants are free to ban smoking in cities where the government hasn’t already arrogated that power to itself.Report
Why should the government regulate for safety? Passengers can study crash data and make their own decisions.Report
Counterpoint!Report
Because of the externalities. When plans crash, they crash into something.Report
When plans crash, they crash into something.
According to John “Hannibal” Smith, that’s not a problem. In fact, he loves it.Report
That’s only an externality if it’s uncompensated. Each airline’s insurance rates will reflect their safety record. If that’s too poor, they won’t be insurable, and they’ll be driven out of business.Report
If that’s too poor, they won’t be insurable, and they’ll be driven out of business.
They could just fly without insurance at reduced rates! Win win. For the adventurous.Report
That’s a good point. As long as they have enough insurance to pay for potential damages, there’s really no compelling reason for the government to step in at all. It’s not as though the government is uniquely well-qualified to assess the risks.Report
@glyph Externalities come in positive and negative flavors. And also barbecue flavor, apparently.Report
That’s what I’m saying. If an airline wants, say, to allow passengers to use butane stoves on board, it is not the business of some pointy-headed bureaucrat to forbid that.Report
I would certainly upgrade to grill class, but only if they used mesquite charcoalReport
@kolohe – try the fish!Report
Time for the Alamo Drafthouse to start an airline.Report
I can see it now: they five you a parachute and throw you out after one warning.Report
If I may, why should we consider the person talking on the cell phone to be the “oppressor” in this situation? Or otherwise in the wrong? Sure, he might be disrupting your quiet. But why is that worse than your demand for quiet disrupting his intention to make the plane ride a productive one?Report
Suppose his plans were to scream in the face of the person sitting next to him for the entire flight, and mine included not being screamed at. Is the situation wholly symmetrical, or can we identify an oppressor?Report
Come on mike…Sean Hannity certainly flies first class.Report
I think people who are looking to restrict the actions of other bear the burden of proof in why those actions should be restricted.Report
Give me your home number, and we can discuss this later. Say, 4 AM your time.Report
kazzy, I’ve been looking and not finding for a nice summary of a scenario which gets to the heart of something you’re talking about here. The thought experiment is (I think) called the tuba and the piano. It goes like this: two people in a small space want to practice their musical instruments, one of which (the tuba) is so loud that the piano player can’t hear his own instrument when the tuba guy is practicing. Not so for the tuba player, tho: he can hear just fine whether the tuba guy plays or doesn’t play.
The scenario goes on from there to talk about equitable solutions to the problem and whatnot, but the point is that someone who’s desires require another to refrain from acting are at a disadvantage in both realizing those goals as well as in the negotiation of them (tuba guy has more leverage since his desire to practice doesn’t require piano guy to do anything).Report
@stillwater
But I also think there is a tendency to privilege inaction — as the status quo — over action. Because the talker is at some point quiet and the opts to cease to be, typically drawing attention as the change agent.
Fwiw, I’m not saying we should turn flights into no-holds-barred. Rather, I don’t think we should just assume one behavior is oppressive and the other is innocent.
I see this happen in the classroom alot. Teachers will insist one group of children be quiet in service of another group, ignorant to the fact that they have now limited the effectiveness of the loud group.
We share this world with others. We can’t always expect to get our way.Report
We share this world with others. We can’t always expect to get our way.
I think Stillwater’s point is that absent some rules, the tuba player/cell phone user can always expect to get their own way, whereas the piano player/quiet person can never expect to get their own way. So there’s an asymmetry that has to be recognized and addressed.Report
I understand that. I’m not arguing for a ruleless society or a might-makes-right society. But I do think that the goal should be a rule or set of rules that balances the competing needs. A lot of the arguments being put forth here seem predicated on the idea that the right to silence absolutely overwhelms the right to talk on the phone.Report
Let them, people will figure out pretty quick why talking on a cell phone on a plane is a bad idea when their battery is dead inside 30 minutesReport