Okay Loren. Just for you I'm going to spell it out.
I noted it was interesting that the two people posting in this thread most closely aligned with the Libertarian position are the same two people who think that the 'adult' thing to do is immediately surrender to an authority figure regardless of your rights so that a business can violate the terms of a contract. You responded by saying "Because we feel that contract disputes should be handled in court, not by violence. Are you perhaps a fan of trial by combat?"
The contract has been breached. You are saying Dao should use force to attempt to force adherence to the contract. Note that regardless of whether he's right or wrong that's something that by itself will almost certainly get him thrown off the plane as a safety risk. (Pilots do not like it when passengers disobey crewmember instructions! It's unlikely they'll take the time to play judge, they'll throw you off and let you settle it with the airline.)
I am not saying that at all.
The Libertarian position, both in the John Birch Society and Objectivist versions, holds that voluntary contracts between parties are the foundation of a free society, and upholding/enforcing them is one of just two legitimate uses of government force (the other being national defense).
You think an airline can violate contracts at will, and you approve of the use of government agents to enforce its decisions. You're showing your true colors. You may think you're some kind of Libertarian but your position is 100% Authoritarian.
If contract disputes should be handled in court then United should have taken Dao to court and sued him for losses (United would have lost btw - the contract did not allow United to do what it was trying to do, and the airline had other options than to resort to the use of force). It should not have resorted to "trial by combat" in which Dr. Dao was pitted against security guards acting as Mafia-style enforcers in a contract dispute.
Barring special legal protections a property owner can demand you leave their property. Period. If you are wronged in the process you seek redress in the courts, you don't refuse to leave.
Wrong, as you've been shown over and over again. Once a contract goes into effect, the rights of each party is constrained by its terms. The Contract of Carriage spelled out the conditions under which a passenger could be forced to leave the aircraft and those conditions were not met. Dr. Dao had the right to remain in his seat until he (or another passenger) and United reached a mutually agreed upon deal under which he (or another passenger) would give up his seat and United would compensate him for the inconvenience. The use or threat of force to achieve compliance was completely unlawful.
United was not justified in calling for security to throw a properly ticketed, boarded, and seated passenger off the plane unless s/he had violated the terms of the Contract of Carriage. The security team was wrong to act like mob enforcers.
Dr. Dao was not in violation of the Contract of Carriage. He was not in violation of FAA regulations or federal laws. He had the right to remain in his seat.
If United wanted its boarded passengers to give up their seats it should have offered them enough cash and compensation to get enough volunteers. What it did instead was inappropriate, unlawful, and just plain wrong.
Just had a thought here. By refusing to leave he was in violation of FAA regulations--in theory he could have gotten 20 years in jail for his stunt. (Not that his level of disobedience would draw a penalty anything like that.)
No, he wasn't in violation of federal regulations. Dr. Dao is not an airline, railroad, ferry service, or other transportation business regulated by 14 CFR.
You're showing your true colors again. That you would even think the federal government has the legitimate authority to throw him in prison because he wanted to stay in his seat and be transported to his destination per his agreement with United, is appalling. I can't say I'm surprised you would think it, but still... !
