A lot of noise has been made over the new airport security measures being implemented across the nation by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Full body scanners (officially called AIT, or Advanced Imaging Technology) are appearing across the country, with invasive pat-downs offered as an alternative.
It’s what we need to prevent another terrorist attack, supporters say. But opponents insist it is ineffective, and a violation of our rights. I'm squarely in the latter camp, but before we discuss the problems and solutions, we will take a quick look at the facts and the pro-TSA arguments.
---The Facts---
Rationale Behind TSA Policy
TSA Administrator John Pistole defended the new procedures in a op-ed for the Washington Post:
More and more travelers now have the option of going through the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machine, which can detect both metallic items and non-metallic substances such as powders, liquids and gels that can be used in explosive devices as we saw in the attempted attack last Christmas. These machines are the very latest in technological advancement and will eventually replace metal detectors, which have been in place since the 1960s. These machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which have all affirmed their safety. And the weapons and other dangerous and prohibited items we've found during screening have illustrated their security value time and again.
Regarding passenger privacy, Pistole says:
Rigorous privacy safeguards are in place to protect the traveling public. All images generated by imaging technology are viewed in a walled-off location not visible to the public. The officer assisting the passenger never sees the image, and the officer viewing the image never interacts with the passenger. The imaging technology that we use cannot store, export, print, or transmit images.
His op-ed is an excellent summary of the pro-TSA arguments. Most supporters argue it’s inconvenient, but they would rather be safe than sorry. Supporter David Castelveter, a spokesman for Air Transport Association (ATA), stated,
“At the end of the day, what’s important to me is flying safe… I want to get on the airplane and know I’m as safe as possible flying, so if that means going through the AIT machines or getting the pat-downs – if I’ve chosen to fly, those are the choices I’ve made.â€
Reactions to the New Procedures
Polls indicate the country is divided on this issue, with a recent Zogby poll saying a majority (61%) is against the full body scans and pat downs. Perhaps more significantly, 48% of Americans will seek an alternative to flying.
An earlier CBS poll claimed four out of five Americans approve the body scanners. However, the 1137 respondents were not asked about the pat downs. It seems there was some change of public opinion between the polls, perhaps due to the attention the topic garnered amid media speculation about the opt out protest that was planned for the day before Thanksgiving. Congress has responded with letters and proposed legislation. The new leaders for the House Transportation Committee called the new procedures “overly intrusive†and said “The entire focus of TSA’s efforts… needs to be revisitedâ€. Meanwhile, the President says he “sympathizes with passenger complaints†but supports the TSA. The TSA resisted calls for change but has given into some of the pressure. After being told nothing would change, we hear that airline pilots are now exempt, Congress is exempt (surprise!), Children under 12 are exempt from pat-downs, “stick-figure†scanners are being tested, etc. These are small concessions overall, as Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano insists the body scanners and pat-downs are here to stay. Special Interests A look under the hood will reveal the engine of corportism at work, with many special interest groups involved with the body scanners. Tim Carney has detailed some of the other political connections and scanner lobby information here. ---What’s Wrong with the TSA Policies--- Our Rights Are Violated How can these new rules violate our rights? “There are other options, you don’t have to flyâ€, we’re told. “Besides, if we don’t have a right to healthcare, surely we can’t have a right to a flight.†The problem with this argument is that government is (forcefully) inserting itself between two private entities (individuals & businesses) and their right to make voluntary exchanges and contracts. Our right to trade is violated when a third party forces itself into the transaction, as the TSA does. That is quite different from a “right to healthcare†as some TSA supporters have mentioned. We don’t have a right to goods and services from others; but we do have a right to trade. In a future Striking at the Root series, we will look more closely at our natural, inalienable rights- which arguably is one of the most critical but misunderstood issues of all time. Freedom, Security, and Privacy
The gross assault on basic human dignity and privacy should be self-evident and revolting. If you’re not convinced, read stories on what has actually happened1. The horror stories may be uncommon; but just the body scanner (which is a virtual strip search) and the pat-downs (which are really more like a custody search2) are an unprecedented reach by the government into our privacy. It’s truly amazing how hot the water is getting in America, and many people don’t even realize it. Constitutional Issues The Constitution doesn’t empower the federal government to nationalize security of air transportation. As per the federalist nature of the document, such powers are off-limits to the federal government, being retained by the people and their respective states.
The new security procedures are a violation of the 4th amendment, as an unreasonable, unwarranted search. It certainly seems unreasonable to (forcefully) search someone- in the manner the TSA now does- simply because they want to fly; that by itself doesn’t amount to probable cause Some lawsuits against the TSA are citing the 4th Amendment, including that filed by pilot Michael Roberts and another by Arkansas resident, Robert Dean. Outrageously, though, a former TSA assistant Administrator has blatantly said “Nobody likes to have their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line, but truth of the matter is, we're gonna have to do it.†The Constitution and amendments are NOT optional. They are the highest laws in the government, trumping everything beneath them. Any law or judicial opinion that says otherwise would be void- at least, if we had the rule of law; but evidently, we have the perilous rule of man. Health and Safety Issues The safety of the body scanners are “routinely and thoroughly†tested by several institutions
Worry about the AIT’s working properly might be dismissed as paranoia by those who have unshaken confidence in the government. But the TSA’s spectacular failure to find up to 70% of guns, knives, and mock explosives from government testers should make the most ardent statist uneasy. The TSA simply doesn’t have a reputation worthy of such trust3. Four experts from the University of California sent a letter to the White House in April 2010 seeking information on the scanners so they could verify safety. From the AOL Report: "We found that essentially none of this information was known or made public, and more interestingly, it looked like this technology had not been independently vetted by the scientific community, published, peer-reviewed or even discussed openly," Sedat told AOL News. "Essentially, all the information was coming from companies that were making the devices, and it looked like it was being parroted by the FDA and the TSA, which didn't seem reasonable," he said. In April, Sedat and his colleagues sent a lengthy letter outlining their safety concerns to the White House science adviser, John Holdren, asking that several specific areas -- especially an impartial review -- be considered. It was November, seven months later, before the White House replied. Sedat says he and his colleagues have "some heavily redacted reports which basically just raise more [danger] flags, because it's very far from an independent, outside review." The bottom line is that the the University of California at San Francisco group isn't any closer to assessing whether there are health hazards from the scanners. "I would say we don't know,'' Sedat says. "We just don't have access to the needed information. We've got 5 percent of the population that might be sensitive to X-rays. Are older people, myself included, at greater risk? What about pregnant women and children? These issues need to be addressed." From a health perspective, the ideal exposure to radiation is zero. Obviously this is unattainable, since we are exposed to some radiation naturally. But the potential health danger resultant from increased exposure tetrahertz waves, which are emitted by the body scanners, could be problematic. It seems (at minimum) that they could do some genetic harm4. A greater understanding of the real health risks is needed before anyone boasts of the safety of the body scanners. Additionally, much more transparency from the TSA regarding the AIT’s is imperative so that independent experts can review the information. For me, as well as many others, the AIT’s are not a risk I would take right now- especially since it is unnecessary. Security Theater and Strategic Problems Whether it was requiring us to remove our shoes or banning printer cartridges, the TSA’s response has been quite reactionary and mostly security theater Reactionary policies don’t throw much of a roadblock in front of a serious terrorist- (not to mention the TSA’s despicable track record enforcing existing roadblocks5). When there’s countless tactics and targets, reactionary measures only force terrorists to modify their tactics and targets to avoid the few we have specifically reacted to. |
Security measures should be about preventing future attacks, not just looking back to previous attacks. But that won’t be enough. We must ask why terrorism happens. Politicians are loathe to consider the side effects of their warfare state. Yet, it is untenable to think any nation can meddle in the affairs of other nations, prop up dictators, kill Muslims at a > 30:1 ratio, set up hundreds of bases in over 130 countries, lock up innocent persons, torture, etc.; and not simultaneously anger some people- so much that the only way they think they can effectively fight back such a superpower is through attacks by smaller groups of individuals using the tactic of terrorism. It’s called blowback. Washington never discusses this, though; the warfare state, along with the welfare state, is the essence of today’s bloated government. As long as the people allow it and Washington is able to pay for the empire, we shouldn’t expect the terrorist threat to subside. Current Policies Result in More Deaths Since airliners and airports are not able to compete and offer different security measures suitable for those who find the TSA measures unacceptable, the current situation results in more people reverting to driving, which is statistically deadlier than flying. Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, agrees: “Driving is much more dangerous than flying, as you are far more likely to be killed in an automobile accident mile-for-mile than you are in an airplane... The result will be that the new TSA procedures will kill more Americans on the highway†A study [PDF]by researchers from the Cornell Univerity found that following new TSA procedures implemented in late 2002, resulted in 129 additional traffic fatalities in the fourth quarter of that year. This, as Nate Silver pointed out, is a rate equivalent to four fully loaded Boeing 737's crashing each year. It's hard to measure this kind of statistic precisely, but it is certain that the TSA's security policies- however many lives they do manage to protect- also result in some unnecessary deaths. Current policies result in more deaths than there would be if the the TSA faced real competition. ---The Solution---
The Economics of Airline Security What are the appropriate form(s) of security for airlines? Full body scanners, bomb sniffing dogs, profiling, metal detectors, pat downs, or something else? How should it be implemented- perhaps there should be a quicker process for frequent fliers? The answer is not one that can be determined by a group of experts or government officials. The only group that can determine the proper answer are the consumers (passengers) and property owners (airports and airlines). In the same manner that one group of people cannot arbitrarily determine which flavors of toaster pastries, which types of cars, or what size of houses are appropriate for everyone, no group can determine the proper form airline security. There is no one size fits all solution; some people will desire more security than others and will be willing to pay extra for it. The structure of a free market offers numerous incentives that compel airlines to deliver the benefit of high quality security with the lowest possible cost. It is in the airline’s interest to take necessary measures to protect its property from terrorists that would destroy it; not only can terrorist attacks result in the loss of extremely expensive aircraft, but they will also result in damages for which the airline could be liable for. Additionally, customers demand security; it is unprofitable to offer insecure flights. Airlines that offer insufficient, invasive, or otherwise poor quality security will lose business to those who deliver what consumers want. Market Airline Security in Action How could people and businesses secure their own property? Specifically, how could airlines secure their property? Despite screening passengers, designing safe airplanes
Insurance companies, seeking to minimize the number of claims made, would have their own minimum security requirements for airliners. Instead of security theater or handing out pork to special interest groups, insurance companies and airlines would only be interested in procedures that truly improved safety. There are an infinite number of ways airlines, airports, insurance companies, customers, and other participants in the industry could work together and innovate better security methods and reduce costs. It’s impossible to predict how it will play out, but it’s certain to work better than socialized airline security. Why the Market is Always Superior Free markets always deliver vastly superior products and services because of the price system which gives constant feedback to businesses on the success and failure of their actions. Scarce resources are allocated where and how consumers want them since that is where the maximum profits are. Government institutions cannot replicate this because they are not subjected to the profit-loss regulation. Instead their income is taken involuntarily from society through some form of taxation. This results in what is known as the calculation problem. Under the TSA, there is no voluntary customer relationship. Instead, it has a coercively enforced monopoly in which potential passengers cannot opt-out of. As with all government programs, the TSA cannot determine if it’s policies are effective and efficient, because they face that economic calculation problem. Stop Overreacting to Terrorism Free market airline security should be coupled with a more sensible reaction to terrorism in general. The news will always focus on what’s rare- that’s why it’s news to begin with. Unfortunately, we humans tend to conflate these stories and the frequency they are discussed with the actual threat level. That is, till we decide to think rationally about terrorism and stop panicking. The truth is terrorism has almost no chance of directly affecting you. Lightning, car crashes, disease, et cetera are far more likely to bring an early end to your life. By partaking in public hysteria- and overreacting- we are making it harder for others to stay calm, handing victory to terrorists Security expert Bruce Schneier eloquently stated: By not overreacting, by not responding to movie-plot threats, and by not becoming defensive, we demonstrate the resilience of our society, in our laws, our culture, our freedoms. There is a difference between indomitability and arrogant "bring 'em on" rhetoric. There's a difference between accepting the inherent risk that comes with a free and open society, and hyping the threats. ---Conclusion--- The current TSA policies are not only ineffective, unconstitutional, and potentially unhealthy, they are downright immoral and tyrannical. The proper balance of airline security, privacy, and common sense is up to the peaceful, voluntary actions of individuals, not the arbitrary reactions of politicians and bureacrats. We must decide for ourselves what we want and then patronize that business that best satisfies our demand. The incentives of a free market approach encourages efficient, effective security instead of costly and invasive security theatre. Refuse to overreact to the threat of terrorism. Make the TSA an issue both now and in the next election. Use it to test how much tyranny and sheer absurdity political candidates are willing to support. Tell airlines that you can’t fly until the TSA is gone. Opt out if you must fly- or find another way to protest. If enough of us are willing to fight, we will win.
Notes: 1- TSA Stories: Detailed descriptions of less frequent abuses (here, here, here, here, here, here) and brief, common stories (here, here and here) “A ‘pat-down’ search by definition is ‘a frisk or external feeling of the outer garments of an individual for weapons only. ... anyone who watches cop shows knows what a pat-down search is. The words are part of the American lexicon, and the public's image of a pat-down search by police is something that isn't all that bad… In police work, [the TSA's current method is] called a custody search [and] includes everything short of a cavity search. The TSA needs to be honest about what they're doing. It's not nice to lie to the American peopleâ€
Photo credit: Constitution: kjd |
__________________________________________________________________
Striking at the Root is a series of posts digging deeper than platitudes, and dealing with the underlying ideas behind our politics. It alludes to the words of Henry David Thoreau:
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to one who is striking at the root"
You can keep up with the series by joining the group, Striking at the Root. Posts will be occasional- hopefully at a pace of at least once a month. Group members will be notified by Gather email for each new post. Suggest topics for future posts here.
In addition to politics and economics, Striking at the Root will dip into other topics from time to time. There’s something for everyone!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 144
Wow Matthew! ...I'm very impressed with your use of format/display techniques in this post!
I haven't actually read the post yet, but I will soon (even with a product like Dreamweaver this post would take considerable time to put together).
The text is rather small, but enlarging it might make your post too unwieldy for the average reader...limiting interaction around the topic.
Matthew, FYI, scaling down the display of images does not decrease load time. You must reduce the actual size of the image (and file) on the host site in order to enact a change in the user experience for your post. :-)
That's good enough for me. You don't need an excuse to not fly.
But seriously, "The current TSA policies are not only ineffective, unconstitutional, and potentially unhealthy, they are downright immoral and tyrannical."
That's just silly. The TSA is trying to do the job that the people have demanded of it - keep the planes they are on from blowing up or being flown into buildings. You can argue whether this method or that method is the best method for accomplishing this or that, but to suggest it is unconstitutional is ridiculous. To suggest that it is immoral is just mind-numbing. To suggest that it is tyrannical is downright paranoid.
We really need to discuss these issues rationally, which most of your article does. But the "tyrannical government" hyperbole is both unhelpful and incongruent with the principles on which this country was founded.
Says who? I find your unquestioning faith in authority not only childish and irrational, but also in stark contrast to the obvious intent of the Founders, and the Constitution they produced, which clearly embraces a far less "sheepish" approach to the potential for abuse of power.
History is replete with oodles of examples of abusive and corrupt political systems and shenanigans that go against the people they are ostensibly serving, and pretending that "it can't happen here" is just plain thick. Of course it can happen, if those who champion blind faith in authority are taken seriously . . and in fact it's virtually inevitable, I think.
The argument that there are no bad guys around here, is not an argument at all, but a myth, with no basis in fact. There are ALWAYS bad guys around here, and they will ALWAYS seek power over others. We cannot just trust in those who have acquired power, for it is obvious that power can be essentially bought in our world, and that at least some bad guys have a lot of money. Magical thinking, will not keep them at bay, and that's precisely why the Constitution includes inalienable rights. Anyone that tries to circumvent or undermine those rights, ought to be assumed to be bad guys or employees/dupes of the bad guys, not assumed to be harmless bureaucrats or politicians just doing their job, I say.
(Even if that makes David uncomfortable to consider ; )
The TSA is trying to do the job that the people have demanded of it
Did the people really demand this, or was it more the idea of politicians and some corporations?
but to suggest it is unconstitutional is ridiculous.
I explained why it violated the fourth amendment in the article (and saved another argument for later); what part of it did you find ridiculous?
To suggest that it is immoral is just mind-numbing. To suggest that it is tyrannical is downright paranoid.
It seems immoral to intrude so deeply into our privacy as the scanners and pat-downs do. It also seems rather oppressive, authoritarian, and harshÂ
I’d like to hear why you disagree. I know my rhetoric there fell outside of the mainstream politically correct spectrum, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong.
Of course we, the people, did. We screamed for protection from the terrorists who flew four commercial airplanes into two buildings loaded with 50,000 people, a major office building with thousands of people, and whatever target they were heading for before some passengers made the hard choice to sacrifice their own lives to save perhaps thousands of other lives. We did it when we gave Bush credit for there not being another successful foreign terrorist attack in the US. We did it when we screamed about the lack of security when attempted attacks failed. And what's more, we did it when we completely ignored warrantless wiretaps for the last 9 years (despite the system pretty much being a rubber stamp operation to get a warrant) and we did it when we didn't start any movements until the new President got into the White House.
And you can bet we'll all be screaming if there is another successful attack, because we sure do know that they are out there trying.
BTW, most Americans actually have no problem with the TSA procedures other than the normal whining about standing in line.
I explained why it violated the fourth amendment in the article (and saved another argument for later); what part of it did you find ridiculous?
That's a fair question since in my haste I didn't provide any support for my position when I visited the first time. I suppose I would start by asking why you think going through airport security is an "unlawful search and seizure?" And why the body scans or close-contact scans are more unconstitutional than all the other procedures employed as we go through security, like having us partially disrobe, empty our pockets, X-ray our belongings, and do manual searches of our bags? Is it simply because you think being seen "way too au naturel" on a computer screen is more "intrusive?" Or the close-contact manual searches are "embarrassing?" Are we that vain? We put up with the other crap for safety. If we don't like TSA seeing that we have way too many pounds around the middle or are hiding a nuclear weapon up our butt then that's exactly what the terrorists will say too to make their job easier. As we've seen, the terrorists aren't completely stupid (though many of the ideological lackeys that volunteer to try to blow themselves up seem to both incredibly stupid and thankfully incompetent so far).
Oh right, the 4th amendment. As my traditionally long-winded response above suggests, you haven't actually provided any support for why the 4th amendment applies here. You simply cite it and complain that it is "unreasonable to (forcefully) search someone in the manner the TSA now does." Forcefully? There certainly is no "force" in the full body scanner, unless you are including the fact that some teeny tiny percentage of people that fly go through the scanner. [Since 9/11 I have gone through airport security many hundreds of times and never been groped or embarrassed] The close-contact manual scans, which are the alternative anyone selected for the body scanner can choose to do, are also not "forceful." They may be intimate, which is the real reason people don't like them. In those cases, they can choose the body scanner, which is the default choice anyway.
So, my choice of the word ridiculous. I used that word because the whole idea of TSA's methods being in violation of the 4th amendment is a straw man (even if you don't agree). By your invocation of the 4th amendment, we would have to say that we all undergo all sorts of intrusions upon those rights, including all the other security requirements we have chosen to put up with for years (including before 9/11 since we had airport security before then as well). In short, the "constitutional argument" is specious. I know you won't agree but frankly it is just an excuse to complain about government intrusion into our lives. And the Koch brothers laugh all the way to the bank to know that folks are out there protecting their right to exploit all of us.
Sorry. As usual this is getting long. You should have known better. :)
It seems immoral to intrude so deeply into our privacy as the scanners and pat-downs do.
Why immoral? It's called security. It's called trying to keep the nut jobs off the plane that would wantonly kill hundreds of people for some whacked out ideological (and delusional) "principle." Hey, I don't like being groped by total strangers either, especially since they won't let me pick the cute blonde to do my pat-down. But if people are "groped" then they can complain. If the TSA or private contractors have a jolly good laugh at Auntie Beatrice's flab rolls then sue the heck out of them (Auntie Beatrice would rake in the bucks on that one). But immoral? No.
It also seems rather oppressive, authoritarian, and harsh to restrict everyday passengers with no criminal background to those two invasive options.
Using synonyms for tyrannical doesn't change the meaning. Let me ask you...how many of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 had "criminal backgrounds?" Would Timothy McVeigh have gotten a hand slap for braking traffic laws before killing 168 innocent men, women and 19 small children in the building's day care center? Would the attempted shoe bomber, underwear bomber, Unibomber, etc been considered "criminals" before they attempted murder? Again, it comes back to how much inconvenience we are willing to take in order to keep the nut jobs from blowing us up. As we enter the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 a lot of people have forgotten what we all screamed for after that day...and will scream for again if another such day occurs.
And again, your complaint is not with the other "violations of the 4th amendment" but only with "those two invasive options." So think about it. This isn't really about the 4th amendment at all, is it? This is entirely about not wanting to be "invaded" by a back-scatter full body scanner that shows waaaaaaaaaaaay to much of our private parts OR the alternative that we can choose to undergo, which is apparently waaaaaaaaaay too intimidate for our vanity.
My point is that rather than try to find some constitutionality issue in every nook and cranny we should be discussing the actual facts and the actual issues and the actual things that we don't like. You don't like being groped? Fine, neither do I. So let's complain about being groped. And let's sue the pants off of TSA if they seem to be groping too enthusiastically or picking out the hot men and women to body scan. Let's argue about actual details and not some theoretical, and frankly counterproductive, constitutional straw man.
Okay, I'll shut up now. I know we have differences of opinion on several issues, Matthew, but I've always considered you highly thoughtful and informed (unlike paranoid sous le lit dust suckers like John K). I understand that you are concerned about constitutionality. But let's be honest. For anything that someone feels is unconstitutional there will be dozens of lawsuits. The vast majority are thrown out as silly, or even the idiotic delusions of the paranoid mind. A few will have some merit and will work their way up the line and some may even make it to the Supreme Court and be found unconstitutional. On the rare occasions that that happens the Congress goes back and tries again. But to constantly carp on surreality as if it was real is a complete waste of time. Pick the right fights, preferably real ones, not "I wish it were real" ones.
BTW, I have you set up as someone for whom I'll get an email whenever you post an article. I enjoy the discourse. In all honesty, I really wish I had more time for this medium but life has a sneaky way of intruding into writing time.
I look forward to your next Striking at the Root post and will try to carve out some extra milliseconds to participate more fully.
Best regards and happy new year!
How many people have been screaming for the AIT’s and pat-downs? (Or some of the other TSA procedures). Whose ideas were they? (Hint: e.g. Michael Chertoff)
Both the Patriot Act and the AIT’s had been in planning for awhile before the respective terrorist attacks occurred. Would you deny that politicians promote and take advantage of public hysteria, with MSM support, in order to get otherwise unpopular projects and bills passed? It’s not too hard to fool the public into acquiescing or even supporting something they really didn’t want. It’s hard to figure out who bears the most blame, the ignorant public or the powers that be who lead them astray.
BTW, most Americans actually have no problem with the TSA procedures other than the normal whining about standing in line.
One of the more recent polls disagrees (61% against). Either way, majority support does not determine whether something is right or wrong.
4th Amendment:
- I’m arguing both the scanners, which do a virtual strip search- and the pat downs, are unreasonable searches.
- Buying an airplane ticket isn’t probable cause
Would you consider scanning everyone walking down a sidewalk or driving down a road as a violation of the 4th?Forcefully? There certainly is no "force" in the full body scanner
Government forces passengers to submit to one of two options (once the scanners are finally installed everywhere). You, the airline, or the airport can’t decide to use a different security procedure.
Using synonyms for tyrannical doesn't change the meaning
Whether the TSA procedures are harsh, tyrannical, oppressive, etc. is in the eye of the beholder. I understand it doesn’t bother some people at all. Good for them. In a free market they can demand that airports use AIT’s and pat downs.
I enjoy these conversations, you are welcome to make your comments as long as you like:-) I also use the email subscription service to keep up with several member’s content, yours included.
Happy New Year, as well.
You're preaching absolute blind faith in the powers that be, so what? If that's the way you see the world, then it really doesn't mean much that you see no problem with this invasive search stuff, or the spying, or whatever. Got ya, you're all trusting and confident in the political powers that be.
All the fearful things that justify what is done by them, are good to be afraid about, it would seem. And any fear of them, is paranoia, you seem to be saying in general. Big Brother is your friend, and all that. Nothing could go wrong.
I think a whole lot of things could go wrong. I think they have.
How many people screamed for losing their nail files? Taking off their belts and shoes? Dumping their personal 14-ounce silver crosses in the bin?
The people said they wanted to be safe. The terrorists keep trying to come up with ways to circumvent existing procedures. So argue about how to achieve safety from underwear bombers or people putting things where normal procedures can't see. Don't make it about the Constitution. That is specious and unhelpful.
Both the Patriot Act and the AIT’s had been in planning for awhile before the respective terrorist attacks occurred.
I see. So the government is out to get us? Please don't go all paranoid like John Knight and his pathetic fear of everything.
Would you deny that politicians promote and take advantage of public hysteria, with MSM support, in order to get otherwise unpopular projects and bills passed?
Of course I wouldn't deny it. Happens all the time. Would we have invaded Afghanistan to (try to) take out bin Laden if 9/11 hadn't happened? Of course not. Timing matters.
It’s not too hard to fool the public into acquiescing or even supporting something they really didn’t want.
Or vote in polls you're about to mention in the way they voted. Hence why the GOP constantly repeated the lie that health care was "government run" and had "death panels." Manipulation of public opinion is a parlor game in Washington. And the GOP are the masters of the game. [Apparently the Democrats are rather incompetent when it comes to lying with a straight face]
It’s hard to figure out who bears the most blame, the ignorant public or the powers that be who lead them astray.
It's not hard at all. If the public wouldn't keep reinforcing the exact behaviors that they lie to themselves about abhorring, the politicians wouldn't get away with anything. But guess what...the very people who were the most motivated to vote in this past election were so transparently hypocritical that the politicians know they can just follow suit. In fact, they have to play the game the ignorant public is forcing them to play.
This is on us. We, the people. And unfortunately the ones who think they aren't the problem ARE the problem.
One of the more recent polls disagrees (61% against). Either way, majority support does not determine whether something is right or wrong.
Public opinion polls on anything other than who people think will win the Super Bowl are meaningless. People are way too fickle and easily molded. Hence the wealth of the hundreds of PR firms in DC alone.
I’m arguing both the scanners, which do a virtual strip search- and the pat downs, are unreasonable searches.
Yes, it was clear the first time that that is what you are arguing. Why? Why is walking through the X-ray scanner not unreasonable? Why are the pat-downs they have always done not unreasonable? The only difference is vanity.
And without these methods, how would you accomplish the safety that that these methods are intended to accomplish? Will that method also be "unreasonable?"
Government forces passengers to submit to one of two options (once the scanners are finally installed everywhere). You, the airline, or the airport can’t decide to use a different security procedure.
And only a tiny percentage of passengers will ever see either method. Apparently about 99% of people opt for the AIT and other than a few people who pre-planned to whine about getting their junk touched (before it happened and while ensuring he was being recorded) most people have no problem with it (Zogby polling notwithstanding). I've never gone through either procedure, and frankly can't imagine why I would care if I did. I get more intimate contact in the subway during rush hour. It's a non-issue. Or more accurately, it's a mentality that government is bad looking for an excuse to be an issue.
Whether the TSA procedures are harsh, tyrannical, oppressive, etc. is in the eye of the beholder.
Well, true to a point. When one reaches the point of being irrationally paranoid about dust bunnies like the guy above, the "eye" becomes too occluded to be taken seriously.
Til next time.
There you have it, folks, the real justification for the end of self rule. Big Brother sees you as domesticated animals, to be used and fleeced by the truly wealthy and powerful. A source of labor, to be pacified and entertained, if obedient and productive, not the decision makers of anything important.
The Constitution is an annoyance to the master class (and their boot licking lackeys ; ) something archaic and troublesome, that gives you rights and powers you are unworthy of.
Tell you what, go feed your "inside job" fetish while you count up the number of Commandments you have violated, and leave the discussion for the adults. You have wasted enough of my time and everyone elses time, and the more you try to talk the more pathetic it makes you look.
Seriously.
It’s not a conspiracy. The body scanners were in the works long before the “underwear bomber†failed to blow up a plane. There are plenty of news stories (e.g. here and here) on the AIT’s dated before 12/25/09.
As for the Patriot Act, I’ll refer you to the first paragraphs of this page for now, written by left/progressives; perhaps later when I have more time I could do further research if that is not satisfactory.
I’m not fond of conspiracy theories and “paranoiaâ€, but I think it is very healthy to have a distrust of the government, given the nature and power of that institution. Conversely, it’s dangerous to be so confident in the government.
Why is walking through the X-ray scanner not unreasonable?
Compare the AIT and x-ray images; the former is a virtual strip search. There is a huge difference, which I think crosses the unreasonable line. I’m all ears if there’s someone who want to make a case that it is reasonable.
The root of the problem is when we let government get involved in airline security in the first place. Once that is considered legitimate, it’s only a matter of degree. While I think a solid case exists from a Constitutional viewpoint (4th amendment) to restrain this, it’s a limited argument, and certainly not the main focus of my article.
And without these methods, how would you accomplish the safety that that these methods are intended to accomplish?
I know there are a myriad of other security measures (including bomb sniffing dogs, profiling, metal detectors, etc). I don’t know which ones are the best; that’s up to the market to decide. I do know there certain security measures that would be unacceptable to me, such as the invasive pat-downs and the present AIT’s. I would fly with airlines that offered security that in my subjective judgment was less invasive and more effective.
Since 9/11, some of the main things that have improved safety were reinforcement of cockpit doors and passengers becoming aware that they should fight back. Incidentally, that’s what stopped the Xmas day bomber, despite the government having received some warnings about that terrorist.
And only a tiny percentage of passengers will ever see either method. Apparently about 99% of people opt for the AIT
I’m confused. Did you mean only a tiny percentage of passengers will see pat-downs?
I fail to see your point. Of course body scanners were in the works before the underwear bomber made his attempt. It's not like the TSA sits on their hands not thinking about ways their procedures can be circumvented by people with homicidal motives. Some few places were already testing scanners; it was only after the underwear bomber that there was the public outcry for "protection" that the funding and urgency was increased for implementation.
And this leads to a more important point. Security is ever changing. Procedures change as the threat changes and gaps are identified, and unfortunately it takes some new incident before the public starts screaming "why did he come so close?" We forget that we constantly try to keep the government from impinging on our liberties...until someone tries to blow us up, then we complain that the government didn't stop the guy soon enough.
As for the Patriot Act, I’ll refer you to the first paragraphs of this page for now, written by left/progressives; perhaps later when I have more time I could do further research if that is not satisfactory.
I don't see your point here either. There are all sorts of opinions on the Patriot Act out there. And is isn't shocking that the government is always looking for ways to deal with individuals, organizations and nations who are out to attack us. Planning ahead for continencies is what people, and governments, generally do.
Compare the AIT and x-ray images; the former is a virtual strip search.
We can agree to disagree on how much weight vanity has to do with our Constitutional rights, but frankly, this is a distraction.
The root of the problem is when we let government get involved in airline security in the first place.
I find this really confusing. In the first place, the primary clause used as authority for a great many federal level actions is the commerce clause. And interstate/international transport would seem to fit quite nicely into that clause; certainly more than a lot of things undertaken citing the same authority. Secondly, the airlines (i.e., private business) very much wanted the federal government to step into this role because having to deal with thousands of airports around the country (and planet) is a logistical nightmare. Having each airline handle security individually would be insane. And even if they collaborated to hire outside private contractors to manage security systems for each airport they still would be faced with doing the same for every airport. And how exactly would they deal with airports in other countries? It's simply not workable.
You could probably make a good case for having the TSA be solely a standards setting and training body, with local contractors to handle the actual on-site work, but that really wouldn't be any different than it is today. The standards have to be national and the training has to be standardized. Otherwise it won't take long for potential terrorists to find the weakest link.
I know there are a myriad of other security measures (including bomb sniffing dogs, profiling, metal detectors, etc). I don’t know which ones are the best; that’s up to the market to decide.
The market? And how exactly is the market going to decide which method works best? When a plane blows up we just identify the one method that failed and the victims families sue that company? Please explain how "the market" could possibly determine what method(s) work best.
I do know there certain security measures that would be unacceptable to me, such as the invasive pat-downs and the present AIT’s. I would fly with airlines that offered security that in my subjective judgment was less invasive and more effective.
While I'm sure you say that sincerely I doubt that you would really have that choice. As I said, the airlines themselves want federal control. In part because of logistics (and externalizing the costs), but also because they would be unwilling to accept the liability of having more lax procedures that might result in catastrophic loss of life.
But the key here is effectiveness. You presume that somehow less invasive would be more effective. Personally, I can't tell you which method or combination of methods is "more effective." Can you? I suspect you have simply presumed lack of effectiveness as part of your rationale for disliking a method that, to you, is unacceptably invasive. So the point is to 1) identify what exactly these two methods are specifically trying to accomplish (e.g., catch anyone with explosives inserted vaginally or rectally), and then 2) are there other less invasive methods that can accomplish those goals as well or preferably even more effectively. [I've assumed that the goals themselves are valid but I suppose that in itself would also need to be established.]
The point is that there are objections to the methods. Period. So argue the objection directly, don't represent it as some global assault on our Constitution. When you do the latter you leave no remedy other than not employing the methods. When you do the former you resolve the objection no matter how you frame it.
Since 9/11, some of the main things that have improved safety were reinforcement of cockpit doors and passengers becoming aware that they should fight back. Incidentally, that’s what stopped the Xmas day bomber, despite the government having received some warnings about that terrorist.
To be clear, the attack was stopped by shear luck. If the bomb had exploded as intended there would have been no time for reaction by the passengers. Luckily it failed. And yes, I agree changes to the cockpit door have made it nearly impossible to get in, and that passengers are now instantly willing to take action. All of this is because prior to 9/11 hijacking of airplanes was primarily to make a political statement and/or seek asylum and in almost all cases the passengers and plane were inconvenienced but not threatened. So policy was to "do what they say and no one gets hurt." 9/11 proved that there were people willing to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of hundreds (and thousands) of other innocents to create terror.
Which is why being able to detect hidden explosives is so critical. If they work there would be no time for passenger or crew reaction. These devices MUST be stopped before the person gets on board. We've been lucky, but they will keep trying.
So again, what method will stop that? The standard "going through security" procedures will not.
I’m confused. Did you mean only a tiny percentage of passengers will see pat-downs?
Yes. Only a small percentage of people are even asked to go through the AIT. Of that small percentage most apparently do it and move on. I don't have exact figures (and suspect that the TSA does not release them), but the one number I saw said only about 1% of people refuse the AIT and opt for the enhanced pat-downs. [We're talking the enhanced pat-downs, not the normal pat-downs that more people get when they set off the metal detector] So the number of people getting enhanced pat-downs is tiny. I suppose that as AIT use increases in US and foreign airports we will see increased numbers of people being screened, but the vast majority of people go through security without ever even having to make the AIT/enhanced pat-down choice. I've never had it and only seen a handful of others go into the AIT.
Also, when it comes to the invasiveness of the AIT it isn't like they are broadcasting it live on the big screen in Times Square. The feed goes to a TSA agent who is usually in a separate room. So no one sees these except the TSA. In the early usage there were the inevitable leaks of saved screenshots, but this has been cracked down upon and I believe lawsuits filed. That is a problem that is fixable.
As for the enhanced pat-downs, I agree that they are invasive and can't see myself opting to pass on the body scan in favor of it.
For both, the vast majority of passengers get neither. They simply go through the usual metal detectors after passing their belts, shoes and personal belongings through the x-ray machine. Are they effective? I have no idea. Let's argue that. It would be more productive.
Going back through several comments, this part of our discussion started from my contention that these ideas originate more from politicians and corporations rather than the people. We wanted security, and have been conned into thinking the current system provides us with effective and efficient security. It’s our responsibility to research these proposed solutions instead of taking politicians and media at their word. Unfortunately, not enough people do that today.
The root of the problem is when we let government get involved in airline security in the first place
We could argue all day, I suppose, as to whether the AIT’s or metal detectors are “reasonable†per the 4th amendment, and we might not get anywhere. Once we consider mandatory government security procedures for airlines legitimate and acceptable, it’s a matter of degree. How invasive of a security measure should we force everyone to submit to? I’m taking the question back a step further: should we force people to submit to a specific security measure by government fiat?
Onto your assertion that the market probably cannot deliver airline security:
The standards have to be national and the training has to be standardized. Otherwise it won't take long for potential terrorists to find the weakest link.
There is “built-in†incentives to remove any “weakest linksâ€. To state it briefly, it is very risky and unprofitable to be a weak link though which terrorists could wreck havoc. The tendency would be towards having a sufficient level of security while also making it cost effective and in line with customer wishes.
And how exactly is the market going to decide which method works best?
Essentially the same way it delivers other products we want. To repeat what I said to Shandi below, consumers dictate their preferences by who they patronize. Businesses seek to deliver what consumers want because that’s where the maximum profits are. Business does research to figure out what consumers want, and you can bet airlines would be doing the same in figuring out what security measures were in demand by the people.
I suppose it is hard to imagine how security could possibly work without government control, since that sector of the economy has been nationalized for awhile. It’s not the simplest thing to explain, either, because we’re talking about letting people make their own choicesÂ
Letting people interact freely and peaceably works incredibly well whenever it is allowed. I haven’t heard any persuasive arguments why airline security is so different from other goods and services the market delivers, that it requires nationalization.
As I said, the airlines themselves want federal control.
I’ll assume that’s true (haven’t researched that sufficiently). It’s still not right. Business almost always wants to externalize costs to the government. It wants regulations that help their bottom line. Government is supposed to say no, but it rarely does as it’s filled with corporatists.
You presume that somehow less invasive would be more effective. Personally, I can't tell you which method or combination of methods is "more effective." Can you?
Exactly. You don’t know, I don’t know, no one knows. As I mentioned in the article, the right answer can only be found through voluntary trade in a free market.
Maybe the AIT’s could become a useful security tool; I don’t deny that. But my criticism of the current situation remains either way.
So argue the objection directly, don't represent it as some global assault on our Constitution.
We can stop talking about the Constitutional issue anytime. It only made up a fraction of my article, I offered many other objections to current policy.
For both, the vast majority of passengers get neither.
As I understand, the TSA is still implementing their AIT system, but the goal is to have everyone going through the scanners once it’s all up and running.
"We, the people" demanded our country go off and fight those terrorists in their own lands, until we got them all days before "We, the people," demanded more security.
"We, the people" are fickle. "We, the people" should stick with what is right and dump what is wrong. And, from what I remember, "We, the people" never said, "Grab or look at my junk to keep me safe."
I have never been bothered by the security at airports because it is worth it to me to fly safley, but I wonder if it is having that result. Did you know that all airlines have priority
fliers who barely have to go through any security measures? All one has to do is to accumulate many sky miles to achieve the priority status. That tells me that someone who might be a potential terrorist could be in this category. It's a long distance from Iraq or Afghanistan to the US so miles would count up quickly.
The new TSA procedures are inevitable if Americans allow it...
Admit it. This has nothing to do with TSA's methods. It's about playing the "government is corrupt socialism taking away our freedoms" paranoia card.
There's room for honest discussion about what methods are best, but the discussion has to start with the "honest" part.
Admit it. This has nothing to do with TSA's methods. It's about playing the "government is corrupt socialism taking away our freedoms" paranoia card.
David, that is probably true for some (not necessarily Poliwonk), sadly. Especially since there are plenty of real reasons to be against these procedures.
Probably is an understatement. For the scared-of-the-dark types like John Knight who see conspiracies in everything, it's a way to avoid taking responsibility for anything.
As for the "plenty of real reasons to be against these procedures," sure, that's true. So why not spend our time talking about THOSE reasons instead of making up global constitutionality issues where there aren't any? Seriously, how do you have a conversation with someone whose response to "TSA instituted rather intimate security procedures today" is "CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION! SOCIALISM! TAKING AWAY FROM FREEDOMS!"??
It's nearly impossible when people spout platitudes that are not backed up with something.
tame: You sound like a broken record, Matthew.
I don’t care if people want to undergo a virtual strip search or a invasive pat down, the problem is forcing other people to do it.
I’m sure “change is tough” didn’t work as an excuse for all of Bush’s invasive policies including warrant-less wiretapping. Right?
As is the usually the case, the most obviously sensible solution is the one that is most completely ignored or dismissed out of hand, if it is not drowned out entirely in the in the sea of collectivist fallacy and sophistry that poses as modern political dialogue.
The individual airlines and airports are the ones who have the most interest and incentive to insure safety and security in their respective enterprises. Having government institutions and politically-mandated protocols foisted upon them is only wasteful, superfluous and unnecessary in the best-case scenario; more likely than not it is also counterproductive.
My concerns are that the current scans and groping are invasive, unconstitutional and ineffective. And that the scanners - from all of the articles I've read by people who care about our health - are not safe for children, pregnant women and ANYONE whose immune system is compromised (permanently by chronic illness or even temporarily by a cold).
My other concerns are the lies we've been told - like the official who said that they couldn't save the images and we discovered that was bunk and that they ARE saving them.
Profiling like Israel does would work. If only we had fewer tree hugger people in this country, that's exactly what we'd be doing.
We already know who hates us and who wants to harm us.
What Israel does works because they have people trained to talk to people. After these scanners and groping started, one celeb told of his trip to Israel. He was spoken to by airport security 6 times between the curb and the gate. Each one was a person trained to look for the clues in behavior, clothing and how it hangs, whether or not people make eye contact and their voice tones.
That being said, I would certainly NOT have a problem with them strip searching each and every government union worker who came through the line. We've seen via the videos that they are the true terrorists in this country.
You spout that stuff about KKK and I have no idea about what you speak. But you say it over and over again believing that doing so makes it true.
We would have much less problems with people who wish us harm actually being in the US right now if folks like you weren't so adamant about leaving our borders unprotected.
Very nice article!
However:
1) People was against the security check already 20 years ago and this did not stopped terrorism attacks.
2) I never had problems with those checks and today because I have nothing to hide!
3) These new security scanners may be a little bit dangerous for the body. Unconstitutional? Why? Because they can see the body in 3D? Inefective? All former and todays apparatus are in a short term ineffective because we give the time to "terrorists" to have more imagination than the government and or the appointed authorities and companies manufacturing the scanners and others machinery...
I don’t have anything to hide, say, in my home; but that does not mean it’s ok for the government to come in look around. It’s none of their business. Our privacy is important, unfortunately, too many people are being persuaded that privacy is unimportant due to silly arguments like this put out by politicians.
I think the current procedures are probably unconstitutional based on the 4th amendment alone; not to mention the 10th and the concept of federalism that is interwoven in our Constitution.
In most cases I would agree, for instance, an airport could require searches of luggage as a condition of providing services. But with the TSA scans and pat downs, passenger's bodies are being searched without their consent.
This is indeed a very thoughtful and well presented piece . . and my personal suspicion is that what we are really seeing here, is the conditioning of law enforcement/military personnel, to accept directives to treat citizens in ways that until very recently, would have been seen as unacceptable, and unconstitutional in our society. The security for rights trade-off is being sold to the folks who are actually needed to violate those rights, and this TSA stuff is an object lesson in ignoring both the Constitutional duties those in such positions swear allegiance to, and in treating any that protest as suspects and troublemakers . . rather than members of the boss class, they actually are.
If and when Martial Law, or other "national Security" authority is evoked, there will be no difficulty in pointing out that "the people" have already given their tacit approval to being treated like cattle, or slaves.
Whether this is intentionally planned or not, I couldn’t prove either way, but the results are the same.
Looks like somebody parked a Lamborghini in Camden, NJ.
Like I said, spectacular in every way, Matthew, and you've covered it all. I do think you need to give some serious thought to placement, though. For the most part, it's a waste here
We have a shoe bomber, so now we take off our shoes. We have an underwear bomber so now we basically take off our underwear. Next, will we have a bomber who puts explosives up his butt? I begin to see Ben Dover Airlines of the USA in the offing. Sound ridicuous to you? It doesn't sound any more nonsensical than this sense of false security sounds to me. It's like someone coming home from vacation and finding their house wiped out, so the first thing they do is call ADT to have an alarm system installed. In the meantime, the roof needs repair, but since there isn't a river in the living room yet, we've got ADT, so our security is now covered and the house and our lives are so much safer from destruction. That is how I see the logic of what they call security.
We've got unsecured borders, but the only people that cross those borders are the poor people seeking a better life. I have to think that people somehow must think that terrorists don'l like that route, don't know about it, or something equally as absurd.
The reactionary TSA policies do leave one wondering what's in store as soon as a terrorist tries to stick explosives in a body cavity. I can only hope Americans would not tolerate any further privacy invasion, but the number of people already accepting the current procedures leaves me pessimistic.
For me, if the choice is between look but don't touch and touch but don't look, I'll choose the former. Why should I welcome groping? Be a Peeping Tom with me all you want, just keep your hands off please. I have never liked pat downs.
Here in Kingston, the Kingston Public Hospital is in the middle of a high crime area, so pat downs were instituted decades ago. I sometimes resist with mischief, especially if I get the female guard:
"WOW!!! Is my wife watching? I . . . I . . . I think you missed a spot."
Drives them crazy when I do that. :->) Gets the male guard angry.
Well, there you have it folks, another reason to accept whatever threat you're told about without question. They're trying to blow you up with skin bombs . . . Lawrence said so ; )
What I can't understand is why individuals who have been citizens of this country all their lives, and who's families have been here for decades or longer must be subjected to being treated like criminals.
I'll get to see what it's really like when I fly soon.
Some Americans were criminals!
Why will the TSA do an equal or better job?
The truth is, they can’t. Besides the irrefutable economic calculation problem, it’s the airlines and airports that have the most interest in the security of flights.
Blackwater’s customer is the government, not individuals. While it may be privately owned it is not a business you would find in a free market.
Thanks for stopping by, Carl.
I agree. But I have to say, of all the garbage I see written around these forums (particularly posted in response to one of Matthew's articles, as was yours) I can't recall ever seeing anyone so graciously warn us of what was to come in the opening sentence, as you have kind sir. Well done.
Although, I think you may flatter yourself a bit with the "literate, well written" part...
If you mean neither of them can give us 100% safety and protection from attacks, I completely agree. That that's not what you're original comment said:I doubt if body scans would have exposed the underwear bomber.
That's right, the government has admitted that.
I highly recommend a book called "A Necessary Evil" by Garry Wills. It was published in 1999 I think but is still very relevant. In fact, with the way the tea party people completely misrepresent the Constitution and both the intentions and the infallibility of the Founders, it is very appropriate reading right now.
Okay, now that I let known my eyes aren't 15/20, the important stuff. Well written, goes beyond the usual all-hype-no-substance of most Gather political pieces, and teaches. Way cool!
Finally, a political article on Gather with substance. I can't say as I've ever seen that before. Gather should pay you as a feature writer. One article like this per month beats anything they have now.
You thought this out much further than I ever have. I knew "free market" was the answer, but didn't think to add insurance companies + airlines. Brilliant. Take it out of governmental hands (ineefieicency at every opportunity), force the companies to make it their business to make it work at the interest of their bottomline AND customers, and suddenly they come up with ideas that do work. That's the old-fashioned American Way, and a wonderful nose-thumbing to terrorists.
Good read. Good ideas. Thanks.
About the font, the next larger size is medium, which I’m worried that it would be way too large on most people’s computer screens. If you hold down your CTRL button and scroll up one notch with your mouse, it will increase the size of any web page you are on. I wish there was an in-between size for the font (small-medium?)…
Scanning pedestrians just walking by? Yikes.
I like the idea of airlines and passengers deciding the extent of security.
Those who don't mind the scanner and groping can choose that. But...when it's discovered that the full body scanners really were as dangerous as some doctors and organizations said, I think any damages supporters get should be from other supporters, not from the rest of us.
: )
At that point, who's at fault for the deaths caused by another 9/11 style attack, or worse? Is the airline? They were just doing what the customers wanted. Of course the customers will blame someone. At that point it'll be a legal free-for-all against the airline for damages. The airline goes under, the other airlines will have to spend massively in order to achieve the new levels of security demanded by customers (and the insurance to protect them in the event of an attack). Some of them will go under. A market crash will likely occur (as did the one after 9/11).
Privatization of airline security, in the manner you describe, is a disaster waiting to happen. Our enemy is patient and complex. He will wait until an airline becomes exploitable and then he will use it ruthlessly. To expect otherwise, is folly. To expect passengers to rationally choose their own airline including security as a primary concern is also folly. People will go the cheapest and fastest route available. That means, usually, the least secure route. In a world in which everyone does what is actually in their best interests, this would work. Unfortunately, people don't do what's in their best interests. They do what feels good now. What feels good now is to not have to worry about pat downs or security. For it to be invisible to me at the airport and for me to be able to move around the country as I choose. Until the next attack. Then people will worry for a while. Until they don't anymore. And then they'll get complacent again.
They will get complacent and use airlines with lowest security
In a free market, as I propose, you’ve got several parties with a direct interest in the security of an airplane, including: the airliner that owns the plane, the customer who entrusts the airline with his life by riding the plane, the airports, and the insurance companies whose bottom line depends on having as few claims as possible. Airplane manufacturers also have an interest in their reputation which leads them to build as safe and terrorist-proof planes as possible.
Are you suggesting that people will stop caring about their life (customers, pilots, and flight attendants) or their bottom line (airliners, airports, insurance companies, manufacturers)?
I don’t believe for a second that we are so cheap as to demand insufficient airline security. I don’t think customers will consider the few dollars of savings worth the risk of insecure flights. I think airliners will see it’s in the best interest of their bottom line to secure the planes adequately to prevent terrorism. Insurance companies will have security standards before they agree to insure any airplane.
Contrast this with the politicians and bureaucrats running today’s system. What direct, personal stake do they have in the success of the TSA? They already have a monopoly; no need to worry about competition and less need to worry about customer satisfaction. Some of them might have their job at a slight risk. That’s about it. Not their bottom line. Ironically, when government programs fail problems are blamed on skimpy funding they are usually rewarded with more money.
Top that off with the inefficiency of government (calculation problem) and the fact that the TSA directly conflicts with natural rights, and it seems like a pretty compelling case to me: end the TSA monopoly and allow the market to function.
Unfortunately, people don't do what's in their best interests.
I agree we do not always act in our best interest, which seems like a good argumentÂ
People are not inherently rational. They will do what they perceive to be in their best interests. Not necessarily what is actually in their best interests. If a random individual saw on 'Priceline' or whatever that they could get a plane ticket across the country for 1/3 the price or some such, I expect they'll take it, thinking that the saved 2/3 in money will be more in their best interests than whatever security those monies might have paid for. Especially given the way security procedures are generally viewed lately (as security theater rather than actual security).
➜I want to make clear that no system can prevent all attacks, not the free market and not the government. Our goal is to minimize the number of attacks while also taking into consideration other important factors, like freedom (our rights) and efficiency. I think that balance is best achieved on the market.
Consider this: over 30,000 Americans die every year in car accidents. The government could lower the speed limit to 20 mph and probably reduce casualties by more than half. How many people would support that? “That’s impractical and absurd,” you may say.
I agree. Bluntly, all the lives saved just are not worth the massive inconvenience and economic destruction. The same is true of other security: our goal is not too much safety, but the right amount.
➜I agree the Gilded Age, relatively speaking, might have been as close to a free market as we have had. However, it still wasn’t a free market. Can we say that all participants were free to act as they desire provided they did not violate the natural rights of others? No.
Given 'free reign', any industry is more likely to worry about short term bottom-line (the next quarters/years/five years) than generational problems (twenty/forty/sixty years)
➜Self-preservation is in the interest of any business. They will not take too much risk either destroying their reputation or their bottom line. There are not bailouts or other government favors in a free market, so that moral hazard (which exists today) is not present to incentivize excessive short term focus at long term expense.
If a random individual saw on 'Priceline' or whatever that they could get a plane ticket across the country for 1/3 the price...
➜How much of an airline ticket's cost comes from security expenses? I reckon it's never more than a small fraction, and that the savings from skimpy security isn't going to be much to begin with. Word will get out about the insufficient security and the airline will probably loose a lot more business than it gains. Its insurance costs will also rise.
➜I think it's important to note that our terrorist problem is greatly increased by government. This meddling we do around the world is what's driving terrorism. In a free market society the threat will be much smaller, because there will be no offensive military adventures.
While I agree conceptually with the idea of incentivizing personal responsibility... it hasn't usually worked out that way.
They will do what they perceive to be in their best interests. Not necessarily what is actually in their best interests.
➜The question, then, is what system gets them to act in their best interests. I think that there are new, untried ways of organizing society that could work better than anything we have used before. I would argue it's not working out well enough because we haven't yet adopted a free market governed by natural law (or something pretty close to that). Take out the moral hazard of the current system by replacing it with a free market and people will start perceiving what is actually in their best interests.
Okay, I think this comment is getting long enough ;-)
People do what they think is in their best interests based upon the incomplete and human-error filled understanding they have at the time. If, for example, a family that lived in a secluded area without access to the news for the last couple of decades suddenly decided to live in the world, they wouldn't know that security was a concern for air flight. Similarly, a family that decided that 9/11 was a hoax put on by the American government might decide that they didn't need any security. In order to get people to do what's in their best interests, they have to be educated about those interests and believe it. Unfortunately, no reasonable amount of education can give a person common sense.
On the issue of cost, right now, the security apparatus is TSA. How much money are they sucking down? Consider those costs transferred directly to the airports, without any changes. The airports would, in turn, charge the airlines who, in turn would pass those costs on to the customer. Something like $8 billion, if their annual budget is accurate. Looks like it amounts to $15 a seat (based on enplanements from 2003 out of RITA's Bureau of Trans stats), not including infrastructural costs (that weren't included in the annual budget). You are correct in assessing that that isn't much money. On the other hand, given baggage costs, plane ticket costs, etc etc, if I can find someone who eliminates another $15 fee from my plane ticket, and I don't really fully understand what that $15 is buying me, am I going to pay it? Unlikely.
I understand your basic premise and agree with it in principle. I see, however, that we humans have a poor track record with acting in accordance with what we actually need. We have too much emotion tied up with ego and the need for security and social acceptance to do what we may know, intellectually, is in our best interests.
Bailouts or other government support was not explicitly guaranteed, but implicitly. The "Greenspan Put" comes to mind. And none of this would have been possible without the nonmarket institution called the Federal Reserve, fiat money and artificially lowered interest rates.
People do what they think is in their best interests based upon the incomplete and human-error filled understanding they have at the time.
That's true. Is there anyone exempt from this? No. Who, then, is qualified to make decisions for us? Other people with incomplete information?
With both of your examples, I think these families would learn pretty quickly why security was needed (9/11 or not); and it is in their interest to travel safety, anyway.
Should that fail, they still will not find an airliner willing to offer them an insecure flight. The airliner, airport, and insurance companies are not willing to take such risk, even if this one-in-a-million family should demand no security. Additionally, one family will not have any significant influence on the overall demands of all travelers.
Do you personally know anyone that would be willing to fly with zero security? I do not.
Let's assume that $15 is an accurate price tag. First, the money currently being fed to the TSA would be in our pockets. We'd be paying approximately the same amount for our tickets, (and the service and procedures would be much better).
Second, I agree there are probably a few people that wouldn't be interested in paying for any security. However, no airliner will be willing to offer them an insecure flight for $15 less. Others have a direct interest in the security, too.
I agree, even in a free market, we will not always act in our best interest. But it seems to incentivize that more than any other system... all other systems* depend on people setting up the incentives... and remember, people do not always act in their best interests!
*That's what our track record is based on, too.
I am of the unfortunate acquaintance of a few people who, I am sure, would prefer to ride in airliners with no security but the firearms of private citizens who choose to ride on board. Scary as that seems. But, be that as it may, I understand your point, but there are still concerns about how you could effectively implement a decentralized security system of this kind. Perhaps the TSA or some equivalent agency could transition from doers into overseers to ensure that the local solutions developed by states or local agents meet certain levels of insurance guidelines (privately or publicly sponsored). Basically be like credit raters but for the security of these airports so as to enable insurers to make effective decisions about how to rate the relative security of airports and airlines.
Would this solution offer a good compromise between accountability and security as well as freedom of choice?
The services of an agency which rated and reviewed various airline security matters would probably be demanded even in a free market. If it were a government agency, as long as it was quite flexible (and not issuing mandatory regulations), it would definitely be a big step in the right direction.
When a security concern skimps or somehow falls short of their ongoing published ratings, the 'overseer' agency's reviews will demonstrate that, and they will downgrade the ratings. This downgrade should then instigate a re-negotiation on the part of the airline (they should somehow be able to fire that security concern for not meeting its obligations and hire a different one).
I think this would be a good way to take this burden off of the taxpayer. Of course, the consumer will still pay for it, but with good oversight, we ought to be able to maintain at least as good, if not better security.
Ron Paul wants to kill the TSA, which could end the careers of 500 puppies - latimes.com
TSA Checkpoints Now On TN Highways | Tennessee News Press | Tennessee News Directory | TN Headlines
You obviously put a lot of work into every post. Keep cranking out such great content and I am happy to promote it.