Article: America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers

America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3398 Summary:
America has abandoned the cultural values that made the Wright brothers'
great achievement possible.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers launched
their fragile first plane, catapulting us into the Century of Flight.
Starting with a linen-and-fabric machine barely controllable aloft,
aviation's giants have given us routine jet travel as an everyday
convenience--a necessity even.

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives innovation.

A century ago Americans understood that progress comes at a price and were
willing to pay it. Orville Wright was hospitalized after a crash that killed
his first passenger; Clyde Cessna, the founder of Cessna Aircraft Company,
only earned his wings after 12 crashes. "If you are looking for perfect
safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds," wrote
Wilbur Wright. But the risks these early aviators took were calculated and
deliberately accepted. They stemmed not from irrational folly, but from
their willingness to accept the responsibility of independent judgment.

Today we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding that
progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect, to
last forever and to protect us from our own failings--or else we sue. By the
late 1970s, general aviation accidents reached their lowest point in 29
years--yet liability lawsuits were up five-fold, and manufacturers were sued
for even such obvious pilot errors as running out of fuel. Companies like
Cessna were spending more to defend themselves in court than on
research--and production of small planes dropped from almost 20,000 planes
in 1978 to under 1,000 by the late 1980s.

With reliance on one's independent judgment goes an unwillingness to be
coddled by an over-protective nanny-state. Aviation was born in a culture
that valued the entrepreneurial spirit of its pioneers, and respected their
right to pursue their work unhindered by government controls. The Wrights
and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their invention--and
government left the field of aviation free to innovate. Prior to 1926 there
were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off. By
1927, the year Lindbergh made the first non-stop transatlantic solo flight,
Wichita, Kansas, alone could boast of more than 20 airplane companies.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary
deathtraps to capable traveling machines. The pace of innovation was rapid
as planes improved, in under 25 years, from the Wright brothers' rickety
contraption, which flew 852 feet, to Lindbergh's plane, which crossed an
ocean.

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master
planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation has
ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25
years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory
barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most
FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster
at the same time.

Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees
have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one
might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable service,
aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

The symbol of flight in America today is no longer the Wright brothers, but
Icarus. Where once we venerated the bold exploration of new frontiers, we
now condone bureaucrats putting shackles on anyone who seeks to test the
untried--to soar too high or succeed too well.

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out of
existence.




About the Author: Heike Berthold is a regional sales director for an
airplane manufacturer, and a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
Irvine, Calif.

This article is right on the money.
This is what I have been saying for years.
When you live in a society that is unwilling to accept responsibility for
there own actions,
you will forever stall progress.
We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common Sense
Act".
The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense should
have dictated your actions/results.
Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of the
supermarket,
it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
were walking.

Just my two cents worth, please don't sue me for it.

David (KORL)

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
America Has Grounded the Wright Brothers
by Heike Berthold (December 13, 2003)

Article website address: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3398
Summary:
America has abandoned the cultural values that made the Wright brothers'
great achievement possible.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers
launched
their fragile first plane, catapulting us into the Century of Flight.
Starting with a linen-and-fabric machine barely controllable aloft,
aviation's giants have given us routine jet travel as an everyday
convenience--a necessity even.

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which
flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the
extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that
made
their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired
the
innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without
its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives
innovation.

A century ago Americans understood that progress comes at a price and were
willing to pay it. Orville Wright was hospitalized after a crash that
killed
his first passenger; Clyde Cessna, the founder of Cessna Aircraft Company,
only earned his wings after 12 crashes. "If you are looking for perfect
safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds," wrote
Wilbur Wright. But the risks these early aviators took were calculated and
deliberately accepted. They stemmed not from irrational folly, but from
their willingness to accept the responsibility of independent judgment.

Today we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding
that
progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect,
to
last forever and to protect us from our own failings--or else we sue. By
the
late 1970s, general aviation accidents reached their lowest point in 29
years--yet liability lawsuits were up five-fold, and manufacturers were
sued
for even such obvious pilot errors as running out of fuel. Companies like
Cessna were spending more to defend themselves in court than on
research--and production of small planes dropped from almost 20,000 planes
in 1978 to under 1,000 by the late 1980s.

With reliance on one's independent judgment goes an unwillingness to be
coddled by an over-protective nanny-state. Aviation was born in a culture
that valued the entrepreneurial spirit of its pioneers, and respected
their
right to pursue their work unhindered by government controls. The Wrights
and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and
Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming
scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their
achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property
rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their
invention--and
government left the field of aviation free to innovate. Prior to 1926
there
were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules
governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off.
By
1927, the year Lindbergh made the first non-stop transatlantic solo
flight,
Wichita, Kansas, alone could boast of more than 20 airplane companies.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary
deathtraps to capable traveling machines. The pace of innovation was rapid
as planes improved, in under 25 years, from the Wright brothers' rickety
contraption, which flew 852 feet, to Lindbergh's plane, which crossed an
ocean.

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master
planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation
has
ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first
25
years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory
barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most
FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets
construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade
non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite
materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and
faster
at the same time.

Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970's, FAA
requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport
regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees
have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one
might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable
service,
aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

The symbol of flight in America today is no longer the Wright brothers,
but
Icarus. Where once we venerated the bold exploration of new frontiers, we
now condone bureaucrats putting shackles on anyone who seeks to test the
untried--to soar too high or succeed too well.

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate
ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made
America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and
elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants
of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out
of
existence.




About the Author: Heike Berthold is a regional sales director for an
airplane manufacturer, and a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in
Irvine, Calif.

CFLav8r wrote:

We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common Sense
Act".
The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense should
have dictated your actions/results.
Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of the
supermarket,
it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
were walking.

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

The second change could be huge. For example, if BigCorp does something
that injures a person, the jury might decide to award the person 1.5M for
pain and suffering, but then add on 50M punitive damages to teach BigCorp a
lesson. There is no reason that the plaintiff should get that 50M, since it
is effectively a fine -- if it goes to the taxpayers (like any other fine
would), then there is less to tempt people to spurious lawsuits.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
CFLav8r wrote:

We need less laws, but if we had just one more it should the "Common
Sense
Act".
The common sense act would be for those that sue when common sense
should
have dictated your actions/results.
Slipping and falling on a wet floor in a supermarket is not the fault of
the
supermarket,
it is the fault of the individual for not paying attention to where they
were walking.

Actually, you can fix the litigation problem in the U.S. (and to a lesser
extent, in other countries) with a couple of very minor changes:

1. The loser normally pays the winner's legal costs (we already do this in
Canada); and

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.


The second change could be huge. For example, if BigCorp does something
that injures a person, the jury might decide to award the person 1.5M for
pain and suffering, but then add on 50M punitive damages to teach BigCorp
a
lesson. There is no reason that the plaintiff should get that 50M, since
it
is effectively a fine -- if it goes to the taxpayers (like any other fine
would), then there is less to tempt people to spurious lawsuits.

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

So what? Punitive damages are not a part of the "make a victim whole"
payment. They're added "on top" of that as a demotivator for similar
activities in the future.

It's an interesting idea, and it might cause fewer people to view the legal
system as a lottery.

- Andrew

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
... snip ...

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.



Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

"Icebound" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:
... snip ...

Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.



Some lawyer in the group may want to explain why mixing civil and
criminal law is a "bad" situation...

In many (perhaps "most") cases a "civil" litigation is undertaken in
large part because of a "criminal" action.

And, hence, our idiotic, out of control tort system.

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.
Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior. Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

2. punitive damages go to the taxpayers, not to the plaintiff.

Collectivist premise; they aren't the ones damaged. That's part of the
reasoning that got us in this mess in the first place.

Actual damages are covered already, in the first part of the judgment.

Yup!

Punitive damages have nothing to do with harm to the plaintiff, but
are meant only to deter future behavior.

Not necessarily.

Very sensible that they
should go elsewhere than to the plaintiff--and his attorney! (The
solution wouldn't do much good unless attorneys were dealt out of the
punitive damages pot.)

Why would that be "sensible"? I've heard two or three people claim it, but
no one has substantiated it.

A case could be made that that would breed the same "lining up at the
through".

If you wreck my car, and I have to take off days from work to get it, and
myself, fixed how would you determine "actual damages"?

How about a limit on punitives? How about sane rules regarding "negligence"
that doesn't necessitate omniscience?

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
Your solution mixes civil and criminal law...a really bad situation.

Yes, but the very concept of "punitive damages" is already an
unhealthy mixture of civil and criminal law. Reserving the punitive
damages for the taxpayers will help to restore the punitive aspect
to its proper sphere.