Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

By forcing airlines to allow horses, that means the airlines have to expend effort for that. That means they have to raise prices. That means all airline fliers are paying for it. I don't see a reason why all US citizens should pay for it instead of all US fliers paying for it.

As far as depriving other passengers, it's up to the airlines how to do that. They are incentivized to provide a good experience to fliers in order to keep people willing to fly with them.

The set of all US citizens, not the subset of US fliers, is the set that democratically elected the reps that enacted this law. They should be willing to pay for it.

Too many laws are enacted on the basis that they will be popular only because a majority of people will not have to pay for them and thus see no downsides.

When the government pays for things, it distorts the economics, because the true cost of that thing is being hidden from the consumers. By including the cost of enforcement in the cost of the service itself, the market can balance better.

For example, when allowing horses, that means the plane uses additional fuel. Usually the cost of the fuel is included in the ticket, so as fuel becomes scarcer, prices go up, and less people fly. But when the government starts paying for some of that fuel, it will hide that price increase from consumers, so they will fly more than they should, and use fuel faster than they should.

Also, almost 90% of Americans have flown[1], so it's not like filers are some tiny minority.

[1] http://survey.airlines.org/

Yes, but how else will you be able to pull out your phone and start a video call with: “I’m on an aeroplane. Look down. I’m on a horse.”

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact