Skip to main content

Airport Economics: A Demonstration of Self-Governance

Lines to the gate are governed by not a single force of institutionalized law but rather by the sum forces of self-regulating personal discretion. There needn't exist a single law enumerating the appropriate dimensions of these lines or the velocity thereof. Personal perceptions and adaptations suffice to operate these lines, and while some people may criticize these lines while they remain standing in them, some passengers have learned to maximize their relaxation and minimize their standing wait time by remaining seated at the gate, while their counterparts recognize an opportunity to invest their time in securing their respective advantages in line. When government regulates the markets, it assumes a ubiquity of preferences irrespective of extenuating circumstances or priorities. 

One might sensibly advocate on behalf of "efficiency" by suggesting a method of expedited line formation and processing. In order to accomplish this end, force or protracted conditioning, the latter of which would likely still require force, would become necessary, as revealed by the consistent revelation of sum preferences at gates. At what expense might this measure of "efficiency" be attained? One might suggest employing a line liaison to limit access to the line, categorizing passengers by groups. This has already been accomplished by the airline business. Next, one might recommend a liaison who requires passengers to show boarding passes before entering the line, and who ushers them through the line if failing to sustain optimal velocity, however arbitrarily that could ever be defined. That liaison could restrict the movement of passengers in the line, refusing their departure from the line after they have been admitted entrance. 


My personal experience shows that passengers are usually holding their boarding passes by the time they have entered the line, rendering this process superfluous. They typically have their own reasons, however seemingly trivial, for walking at whatever pace or for deviating from the line's predetermined pattern of spacing or linear formation. They also hold personal reasons for entering and departing the line, and the reasons for these actions and those aforementioned might be related to a myriad of possible medical conditions, traumatic experiences, forgotten property, or limitless idiosyncratic human behaviors. In the end, the individual is his own best advocate and governor. It is even possible that the force required to eliminate disruptions to this ill-defined style of "efficiency" would measurably increase costs by employing liaisons or, let's venture into the seemingly absurd, establishing credit-checking institutions which assign values to passengers based upon line performance history. 

These measures of forcible removal could likely even reduce the velocity of the line, outstripping the costs imposed by a passenger merely fumbling with his luggage and straddling a position between the line and standby, all while spontaneously diminishing the value of the overall travel experience. So, at what expense might these lines become more "efficient"? In this case, it seems possible only through an imposition of further costs or by a suspension of liberty and respect for the uniqueness of human life. 

Some who are reading this might contend that this is a silly economic survey of human behavior, but this is precisely what government does when it legislates to advance platitudinous causes under the name of universal or common good, such as the livable wage, affordable housing and education, inflation targeting, health and safety, national defense, supplemental income, equitable distribution of wealth, minority rights, and equality. Government is able to advertise this end only at the guaranteed expense of the individual and his vast, unique, complex, and incalculable preferences in life.

Comments

  1. I have just downloaded iStripper, and now I can watch the sexiest virtual strippers on my desktop.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes