Senator Frank Lautenberg Passes Away

The only reason you posted this is because the republicans will picking up a senate seat.

 

The loss of Senator Lautenberg is a blow to both the Democratic Party and the nation. The last veteran of World War II still serving in the Senate, he was a man who cared deeply about our country and its people. He had countless accomplishments, but one that popped into my head right away was the ban on smoking in commercial airlines flying in the United States. I don't know how many of you recall sitting for hours on a flight in a smoke filled cabin at 30,000 feet, but I certainly do. He'll be missed in so many ways, not the least being his perspective, which spanned such a long tumultuous stretch of American history.

Senator Lautenberg wasn't simply a witness to history, he made it.

edit: the Senator was the last WWII vet in the Senate. There are still two WWII vets in the House, John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Ralph M. Hall (R-Tex.), so I changed that part of my post.

 

It seems crazy to me that smoking on airplanes ever existed. Could not imagine such a thing.

 

It wasn't as bad in 1988, when the measure was passed, although it was still bad. Imagine what it was like 20 years earlier, in the 1960's, when a huge percentage of the population were smokers. The air could get amazingly thick, and there wasn't a damn thing you could do except breathe it.

 

sounds like a market that wasn't being served, a perfect opportunity for competition from a non smoking airline

alas, thanks to the prohibitionists, we don't get that choice

 

It went for decades like that with no entrepreneurs trying to make money differentiating their airline this way. It seems to me that if the free markets can't fix the problem despite the luxury of several decades, that might be an appropriate venue for regulation.

 

No, if the People have confidence enough in a man that they elect him to be their representative in the legislature and, as their representative, he determines it would be a benefit to his constituency to pass legislation, then it is justified and right and good and the way our democratic republic is supposed to work that it be so.

By your strawman reasoning, the legislature wouldn't be justified in doing anything at all. The Japanese just attacked Pearl Harbor and legislators are pissed off. So, just because legislators are pissed off, they shouldn't declare war on Japan? If we really wanted war, some enterprising private citizens would join a Lincoln Brigade and wage a free market driven war on the Japanese.

And it's doubly ridiculous because the smoking ban is an obvious win for the whole citizeny, even for the smokers who, poor souls, have to abstain for a few hours. The invisible hand failed to do the obviously optimal thing.

And finally, it's triply ridiculous that I'm engaging this dumb argument in a thread about a man's passing. RIP Lautenberg.

 

Well if a legislator passed such an atrocious piece of legislation, then the free market of democracy would remove such legislator from office right? And for a piece of legislation to pass, it would require lots of legislators to approve it, so they would all be removed. And then the bill would be overturned because the new folks coming in would see passing stupid laws would get them fired...

 

A legislator cannot pass legislation. He or she can only offer it and then the body he/she is a part of it can decide whether to pass it. But yes, if he feels strongly about it, he can and should offer the legislation.

The free market is not the solution to everything. Here, the legislation was to benefit the health of the population of the US, one of the parts of "providing for the general welfare" that is a specified role of the federal government.

 

Replace 'its customers' with 'his constituency' and you understand me. You seem to be operating with a Platonic ideal in which the spheres of markets and governance can be distinct from one another. I would say they are hopelessly inter-related, which makes regulation of markets not only justifiable, but a public good.

 

When it affects public health, it certainly is relevant. It's a specific role of the federal government.

I assume you're also opposed to health requirements like clean water regulations, seat belt laws, air bags, etc? After all, there is theoretically a free market for those things too. I imagine the rest of the country strongly disagrees with you.

 

And it is. The politician acts as a representative of the People. His own feelings don't matter. If the People wanted the law gone, they could elect representatives that would repeal it. But, I think that law would likely have overwhelming support among the People and a legislator trying to repeal it would be laughed out of his district.

 

Eventually the free market would have made the right decision (like hotels and several other public places), but it was taking too long and public health and presumably safety was at a higher risk waiting for the free market to make the move.

 

Well said, Major, although I had no intention of reenacting the debate that took place at the time here in D&D. I was just mentioning an accomplishment of Lautenberg's that I admire now, and admired then. I'd love to put a couple of these fellows in a time machine on a non-stop from Houston to New York in 1965. Witnessing their reactions would be priceless, although I'd have to be there to see it. Of course, I'd have a gas mask on.

 

I never knew about him either, been through the NJ Transit Station in his name many times going between NYC and Philly.

why do they still have ashtrays in airplanes?

regulation herp derp.

thank you for your service, Mr Lautenberg