Wednesday, April 12, 2017

United Airlines and Its Private Property Society Type Reaction

Without any government decree or legal obligation to do so, United Airlines has changed its passenger removal policy.

The chief executive of United Airlines said the carrier will no longer ask police to remove passengers from full flights after the uproar over a man who was dragged off a plane by airport police in Chicago.

In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" aired this morning, Oscar Munoz said he felt "ashamed" watching video of the man being forced off the jet. He has promised to review the airline's passenger-removal policy.

"That is not who our family at United is," he said. "This will never happen again on a United flight. That's my promise."

In the future, law enforcement will not be involved in removing a "booked, paid, seated passenger," Munoz said. "We can't do that."

Got that? Just like in a Private Property Society where a firm or individual would be allowed to do absurd things on their property, it is generally not going to happen, since, especially in the case of businesses, people would stay away. Businesses will adjust to sane policies.

And if in a PPS there are people who are doing quite insane things on their property, people are just going to avoid those properties, just like they avoid bad parts of town now.

It is quite bizarre to object to PPS on reasoning along the lines, "You mean you would allow airlines to throw people off?" Just because you don't have a government prohibiting an activity doesn't mean that most people aren't going to act civil and humane.

To call for government to protect against crazies who do crazy things on their own property is opening the door for government regulation on all sorts of things deemed crazy by others. If you think someone is acting crazy, just stay away from their property.


(ht Rick Miller)


  1. Why are you fantasizing about a society that doesn't exist, and it may not exist in our lifetime? UA in Atlantis, UA in a distant galaxy, UA under Roman rule

    1. Oh, absolutely. Why should anyone work for something that does not yet exist, and may not exist in his lifetime? How much more productive to spend one's time writing snippy, sanctimonious messages, claiming without any evidence whatever that one's own thought processes are superior to everyone else's.

  2. There is no reason that we could not have private PPS neighborhoods RIGHT NOW other than a lack of consensus HELPED ALONG BY "LIBERTARIANS" WHO NEVER PRESENT IT AS AN IMMEDIATE OPTION (or an option at all). I live a block and a half from Detroit proper and drive through parts of it everyday. Those people could use a PPS neighbor right away to keep out thugs and drugs, have safe private streets, churches and schools. So what if they decide that they want to exclude whites (if they so choose)? Rules against private discrimination result in crime and give the government the opportunity to veto EVERY CONTRACT ever made after the fact although Thomas Sowell taught us 40 years ago that discrimination really does not impact many economic decisions.

    Absent hysterics from the left, I think these black folks in Detroit might like the idea.

    Secession, block by block.