Debate: Safety Regulations

[Delfos]

After the Hiddenburg accident causing hundreds of dead, the opportunity for our government has come to legislate on a solution and prevent these serious accidents from happening.

During a recent severe storm, the airship TFAS-Hiddenburg caught fire and ended up making a crash landing in Taijitu Founder City. Everyone on board as well as several hundred people on the ground were killed in the resulting inferno. Reporter Herb Morris' incredible live coverage of the disaster and the media circus surrounding the safety of such vessels has people looking to the government for solutions.

1. Sophie Licorish, apparent spokesperson for the families of the victims gasps out between sobs, "The only reason this happened is the government has turned a blind eye to the dangers of these vehicles! The solution is obvious, pass and rigidly enforce safety regulations on dangerous industries! Oh, and make the owners of these companies financially liable to the families. I mean, I lost my dad after all, I deserve a little bit of compensation."

2. "Really now, airships safely make these trips on a routine basis! These people are looking at a tiny mishap and not the bigger picture!" claims Renee Malik, owner of Airship Enterprises, the company that operates airships like the crashed TFAS-Hiddenburg. "If anything, the government should be supporting the industry through this tragedy! You know, 'encouraging' people to use airships so that they learn just how safe they really are!"

3. "Tiny mishap? TINY MISHAP?" screams Roger Jones, author of the controversial bestseller 'Corporations Are Bad, Really Really Bad.' "Hundreds of people dead, millions if not billions of tais in damage to buildings downtown, and these industry goons are trying to just shrug and tell the rest of us 'Oopsie,' and buy their way out of trouble?! They have a huge debt to the society they've harmed, make them work in the trauma centers and see first-hand what they've done!"

The ruling party is prepared to dismiss the subject under economical reasons and we have yet to know the opinion of all senators. The Taijitu Society Movement has organized this debate with an interesting panel, we invited all the parties to explain their options and reasons, we also have: Sophie Licorish, spokesperson for the families of the victims of this terrible accident; Ron Ford, safety advisor for the secretary of state of transports; and Donal First, political annalist.

Welcome everyone, Sophie, was this accident an isolated event, just like CEO of Airship Enterprises claims that those airships are safe and it's a misfortune this terrible accident happened?
Sophie Licorish - It is really a misfortune that this happened, but this didn't have to happen. Hundreds died, they have families that are now broken, there's even parents and their children that perished together because of this accident. The government has a responsibility to ensure that this accidents don't happen again, no more lives destroyed because the corporations don't have to compromise further in "accident proof" safety.

Thank you Sophie. So Ron, can the government ensure further safety? Are the corporations able to make it more safe?

Ron Ford - Well, this accidents happen, even if we make legislation to ensure corporations follow all possible regulations, accidents will happen. But there is room for effort, I'm working on a study that shows a lot of traffic accidents happening due to tires being overused, essential car parts failing, brakes failing, and there is dreadful responsibility of the government by not making tighter traffic regulations for vehicle maintenance, and a laissez faire attitude from vehicle parts manufacturers in terms of assuring better and more sustainable maintenance.

This study is about road vehicles, what about air planes and such more regulated crafts?

Ron Ford - To give you a good idea of comparison to those more regulated industries, there are companies that are able to ensure operability of the aircraft even during severe technical difficulties, even with human error, but that's not the case of the majority of the corporations. Not only the manufacturers but also the operating transportation companies relax about some of the issues to cut costs, yet this investment in safety is very rewarding, not only preventing this terrible accidents but also to prevent serious damaging to vehicle parts, which cost even more maintenance. A lot of our air companies are using past 30 year old aircrafts, sometimes neglecting the maintenance such vehicle needs. The case is more serious with cargo aircrafts that are way over 50 years old without passing the whole maintenance requirements. To not name specific companies, there's companies with debts to aircraft maintenance services and are now operating under optimal vehicle performance with minimal maintenance.

Thank you Ron. Donald, will the government force stricter regulation to corporations? What is your insight?

Donald First - It'll be very difficult for the government to make stricter regulations for economical reasons: our companies are strangled with taxation and any more pressure might make a lot of them call bankruptcy, unemployment might rise due to this pressures on this corporations.

But can we risk human lives due to economical issues?

Donal First - No, of course not. Our society has already a high mortality on issues that could be easily decreased by regulation. There's plenty of room for compromised between government and corporations, not just transportation, but gun laws, health and dietary regulations, environmental protection, all these could decrease chance of mortality for heart disease, cancer and murder.

So are we able to sacrifice some corporations and inherent jobs with tighter regulation and increase public safety?

Donal First - It's the law of the fittest, the strongest, isn't this why private companies risk investment for profit? If it's for easy profit all Joes and Maries can get away with unsafe products to the consumer, unregulated pills, unregulated food industry. It's like the government wants it's people to be sick and die so the ones with most money that can ensure their own safety survive. Doesn't our constitution say Equality as a founding parameter for our society?

Thank you Don. We now ask the politicians to comment this issue...

[Myroria]

It is, and always has been, the official stance of the Progressive Party of Taijitu that reason and rationality will bring our region to success. As tragic as this event was, we must not let temporary emotion override reason. Our death by accident rate is, and remains, extremely low - and it is no secret to anyone that the economy of our founder nation is struggling. Further regulation of an already bleeding economy will only serve to hurt our nation in the long run.

While it is tragic that families have been torn apart and people killed in this accident, it is just that - an accident. This was not an act of deliberate malice from this company. While the Senate will not reward their behavior with a taxpayer-funded subsidy, we cannot punish them for a single mishap in an industry that has consistently proven to be safe and affordable to all. The Progressive Party's consensus, therefore, has been to dismiss this issue.

As Spokesperson of the Progressive Party, I can say that our party approves this course of action.

[Letonna]

I concor with fellow senator Myroria and the ProP stance. Despite emotional tourmoil, it is known fact that these problems are few and far between. Regulating an industry that has a respectable track record would be silly and an overstep of bounds. Further arguing against these other options, providing incentive to Zeppelin business would be misleading the public. Accidents happen and people die in blazing infernos, this is just the risk of leaving your front yard. Finally, I will not stand by while we punish a corporation for an accident. What needs to be done is to make some silly stone monument in a park, weep for a few days and forget about it.

[Delfos]

But couldn't we make "leaving our front yard" more safe? Aren't we then reward the companies that relax safety rules in other to cut spending? Couldn't the government help companies to achieve better safety and punish those that cannot ensure the safety of their services? Don't these companies have the social responsibility to safeguard Human Life and doesn't the government have to ensure that they do?

[Cozulul]

I agree that we need to make Taijitu as safe as it can possibly be. However, we cannot afford to do so. Our minds should be set on fixing the economy and make it boom, so in the future, when "accidents" happen, we can afford to help out the victims of such events. I would only hope that companies do not relax on safety rules. There number one goal, as with the government, should be to make the people happy. People aren't going to be happy if their lives are at risk. The government should ensure the safety of its citizens, but the event that happen was an accident. As Myroria and Letonna have said, these accidents are very low and rarely happen. I believe that citizens should just forget about it and move on.

[Letonna]

Mr. Delfos,
No matter how many bills of legislation passed, it will not eliminate the dangers of day to day life. Although true we can always improve safety and regulation, no amount of inspection and nitpick safety reforms will ever rid us of catastrophes. This motion would be a drop in a very very large barrel. Regretful we lose tax paying citizens to such unfortunate events, but as there is no clear contender of malicious offence, there is no reason to prosecute and legislate.

[Delfos]

It seems that we're focusing on this specific accident and not the possibility for accident. The probability of this same accident happening again stays the same if nothing changes, don't you feel the citizens ought to feel safe when using transportation in this case, but also any other aspect of their lives? It seems most of the political choices about this issue are to leave the corporations to do what they feel like, and what they feel like is to make profit, shouldn't we make those corporations to have greater responsibility with public safety since that's not their nº1 concern? How can we justify this accidents happening and say, we could do better, but the liberal economy is more important than regulatory safety?

[Letonna]

Mr. Delfos
We (as in the founder nation) have relatively adequate safety records, scoring about an average in comparison to the international average. In fact, our unexpected death ratio is far below the nations average. And although I do sympathize with you on mistrusting the corporations, this tragedy is nothing but a fluke. Let it be known that our regional economy is not in the best shape. Entertaining the rash ideas of grieving families, anti-corporation bigots and those who seek to gain from tragedy will get us no further along. People will fear silly things, say silly things, and most importantly of all, die of silly things. what is truly silly is to campaign for perfect world. Focusing on the betterment of the big picture, rather than the little things, will get us closer to being a better society.

[Delfos]

Thank you all for your input, if anybody else feels that they can contribute further to this debate, feel free to reply.

(Now my own input) I'll try to be practical, I don't think our economy would suffer much with this kind of regulation, we could probably have better consumer satisfaction and therefore more use and trust of services. Tax can't get any higher and TBH the government spending with this kind of regulation is welcome, rather than the overspend with law & order.

[Eluvatar]

Does Donal First seek to file an injunction witht he Court?

[Delfos]

Donald First - Although that would be interesting, seems all parties elected democratically have similar opinions and therefore I could only wish they wouldn't dismiss the issue.