A question for the Libertarians

[DFW_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

It is a natural liberty to be secure from the government in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Regardless of the chirpy greeting by the uniformed agent with the infrared flashlight or the bizarre signs attempting to characterize this shakedown as some type of customer service, I always remember what is really going on: I am being investigated for a crime. There is no probable cause, no writs, no warrants sworn by oath or affidavit." -- Tom Mullen

So if the airline security becomes privatized, and yet you still have to be screened, then you'd be okay with that? Or are you against screenings all together?

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by DFW_Warrior

So if the airline security becomes privatized, and yet you still have to be screened, then you'd be okay with that?

Privatization is definitely the key. I'm not saying I'd fly any more often, but at least it would get an out-of-bounds federal government out of the picture.

Here's an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/thornton2.html

"Only with private airports and completely unregulated security can terrorists be presented with an efficient, unknown, and ever-changing security challenge. Every airport would be different. Every airline would be different. Security measures could be changed regularly (and irregularly for that matter)."

[DFW_Warrior]

Orrrr, they find the weakest target that spends the least on security, and choose that as their target of choice.

And you still didn't answer my question (sort of batted around it a bit). Are you in favor of airline screenings, just not by the government?

[Moose]

Man all these quotes and cut& pastes are coming from the same source - anybody put this stuff into there own words - so it at least looks like an original idea?

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by DFW_Warrior

Orrrr, they find the weakest target that spends the least on security, and choose that as their target of choice.

Your statement presumes that the security will be better simply because government is in charge of it. I call your attention to how poorly the government does most everything else compared to the private sector.

Originally Posted by DFW_Warrior

And you still didn't answer my question (sort of batted around it a bit). Are you in favor of airline screenings, just not by the government?

I'm in favor of absolute private property ownership and its accompanying rights. With the government out of the picture, private airlines may make and enforce whichever rules and other terms of use they wish, just as Scott does with this website, just as I do with guests who visit my home. If I don't like the rules and procedures of a certain airline at that point, I have the option of picking, for example, an airline that allows me and its other law-abiding customers to travel armed or similar. I'd feel much safer in that scenario, anyhow. I have long preferred the perils of liberty to the safety of enslavement.

Either way, the market would be free to sort itself out according to demand, preference, and common sense, rather than being artificially manipulated by government force and threat of official violence.

[DFW_Warrior]

Soooo... are you personally in favor of airline screenings or no? Pretty simple question I think. LOL

[DFW_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Moose

Man all these quotes and cut& pastes are coming from the same source - anybody put this stuff into there own words - so it at least looks like an original idea?

It's easier Moose. They want all the work to be done for them, without actually having to work at it. It's the American way ya know.

[Tourmeister]

Originally Posted by DFW_Warrior

It is a natural liberty to get on a plane without being screened first?

No. I have absolutely no problem with truly private security or any measures they might demand. This does not necessarily mean I would submit to them given the choice though.

The objection is the government run system precisely because of the power of government to ignore customer complaints AND to destroy your life if they happen to screw up. Even if they don't destroy your life, they can still humiliate you, examples of which have been numerous even if it has not happened to you personally... yet... If the security were private, at worst the airline could turn me away if I refused to submit to their invitations for more thorough searches. Once the TSA gets you, any refusal has the potential to lead to escalation into a situation where you no longer have the ability to just walk away and you may be subject to treatment you do not wish to endure.

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by DFW_Warrior

It's easier Moose. They want all the work to be done for them, without actually having to work at it. It's the American way ya know.

It's these kinds of comments which make it readily apparent that you have no real interest in gleaning new information from these exchanges. I doubt you've bothered to even skim a single one of the links in this thread, regardless of source.

In closing, I answered your question, directly and in-depth. I find it very difficult to believe that you're the only one who can't grasp the language. I'll now simply disengage from direct conversation with you on this topic. I have no further interest in being toyed with for the sake of your personal entertainment.

[DFW_Warrior]

Thank you again for your non-answer Senator Kreitz. And thank you for posting up zero thoughts of your own, instead you merely just cut and paste. You are right, I am wasting my time and energy. But if you ever wonder why your ideals will never catch on, it's because you don't care to show "your" thoughts, just the thoughts of others. At least I give others the benefit of the doubt and give them "my" ideas and thoughts and not a crappy link for some website for them to go wade through.

You would make an excellent politician sir.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

It's these kinds of comments which make it readily apparent that you have no real interest in gleaning new information from these exchanges. I doubt you've bothered to even skim a single one of the links in this thread, regardless of source.

I have no real interest in links and cut and paste theatrics - particularly when they have to be posted in lue of actual debate to prove a point. The only thing you proved to me is you can read and use windoze ....OK and the paranoia thing

The funnest thing about the whole thread is the amount of credit ya'll give your government to ruthlessly and efficiency limit your personal rights, on one hand, while on the other hand all ya'll complain how in-efficient they are about handling everything else.....plots and conspiracies everywhere

Take it seriously - honestly no...I'm a dyed in the wool Canadian socialist. I believe everybody deserves a helping hand and all this self centered stuff makes us smaller

[Tim Kreitz]

Originally Posted by Moose

I have no real interest in links and cut and paste theatrics - particularly when they have to be posted in lue of actual debate to prove a point. The only thing you proved to me is you can read and use windoze ....OK and the paranoia thing

OSX, actually. And providing a reference of some kind to a point of contention is considered thorough in most debates. Seems to me you simply don't like the subject matter which is being linked, so you attempt to mischaracterize it as an appeal to authority.

And paranoia? Really? So we've arrived at baseless personal attacks already -- nice.

Originally Posted by Moose

The funnest thing about the whole thread is the amount of credit ya'll give your government to ruthlessly and efficiency limit your personal rights, on one hand, while on the other hand all ya'll complain how in-efficient they are about handling everything else.....plots and conspiracies everywhere

I challenge you to provide an example. Quote me directly. Otherwise, stop generalizing.

Originally Posted by Moose

I'm a dyed in the wool Canadian socialist. I believe everybody deserves a helping hand and all this self centered stuff makes us smaller

It is a classic and venerable ploy of tyrants throughout history and those they propagandize to call those who believe in the natural law selfish and irrational. The USSR's government did the very same thing for decades, right up to the fall of the wall. The fist of government is a helping hand? That's simply what I'd call astoundingly effective social conditioning.

Charity is the tool of the Libertarian, and when left unabated, it is a much better solution than welfare in every instance. Poverty per capita in America was at an all-time low when Johnson declared "war" on it in 1964. From that time, rise of the welfare state has been generally accompanied by a continuous rise in poverty. Socialist policy simply accomplished its natural goal in the War on Poverty -- to create dependence.

[Tourmeister]

Stop the personal bickering please

Moose. I do not believe in grand conspiracies with people able to foresee and plan for all eventualities, for exactly the reason you posit, which is that I don't believe the people in power are that smart. However, that is not to say that there are not people in power that seek to use opportunities to accomplish their goals. To think otherwise would mean that those in power are in effect actually powerless and have no ability to put into place policies or to take actions that have sweeping effects on our society. This is just as absurd as believing in some overarching grand conspiracy that controls the whole world. I think the reality lies in the middle somewhere.

The removal of liberties is more of a side effect in my view as opposed to and end goal of itself. The end goal is the seeking of power to impose the various schemes to remake society to conform to the views of those currently in power. This necessarily involves forcing people to conform their behavior to match the schemes.

[DFW_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Tim Kreitz

OSX, actually. And providing a reference of some kind to a point of contention is considered thorough in most debates.

Yes it is. However, simply providing a link in place of your own thoughts and ideas is mostly considered a cop-out.

We are so afraid of having our liberties taken away because we have to take off our shoes to get on an airplane, yet we have our liberties taken away every day by the private sector and Libertarians every day are just fine with this. All because it is in the name of the "private sector". It makes no difference if liberty really is an "absolute", it just makes ya feel better about it.

Tim, your quote that you pulled...."Regardless of the chirpy greeting by the uniformed agent with the infrared flashlight or the bizarre signs attempting to characterize this shakedown as some type of customer service, I always remember what is really going on: I am being investigated for a crime. There is no probable cause, no writs, no warrants sworn by oath or affidavit." -- Tom Mullen

The exact same investigation for a CRIME is taking place every single day by employers, credit card companies, banks, mortgage companies, auto loan providers, apartment complexes, and so forth. They are all investing you and me for a crime yet none of them have probable cause, writs or warrants to do so. Yet I don't see the Libertarians screaming glory, glory revolution all because it is being done by the private sector. The difference... nothing at all. A person knows the rules going into a given situation, and they can choose to keep going and let the search proceed, or they can avoid the whole mess all together. Last time I checked the gub'ment isn't forcing people into airports so they can search them against their will.

See how easy that was, I typed my own ideas and thoughts. It's much better than hitting ctrl+c, then ctrl+v. But to each their own I guess.

[Diderich]

I'll go ahead and take what I think you guys believe is the radical position. I am against airline screening. It is completely ineffective. Name ONE arrest of a terrorist caught in airport screening. One. If private companies were doing it I'd STILL be against it. Come on, we ban guns and knives and they use box cutters, or in many cases...they get guns on anyways. We ban everything and they blow up their shoes.

We could be stark naked, and they could still just park at the end of the runway with a shoulder fired missile.

I can rent a Cessna 182 and put a backpack nuke in it and fly over new york.

Car bombs are a far more common terrorist weapon, should TSA be in my driveway?

Why is hijacking a plane more of a threat than hijacking a bus?

This isn't to say that we should just open our arms and say here blow us up, we can take security measures that don't rely on unreasonable search and seizure. Closing the cockpit for one. Armed marshals if you are paranoid. They don't have to be govt guards either, heck NASA uses a private security company (Wackenhut iirc), I don't see why airlines can't. They can interview passengers and develop an actual case for probable cause for a search. You can have passive devices that actually search for bombs, like dogs or mechanical sniffers. Its not unconstitutional to smell someone I think. If someone fails that and walks away suspiciously they can be reported to an investigator (in a libertarian society, not anarchy...that's a whole other can of worms, I'll assume limited government for my essay here). That investigator can do a proper police investigation to see if they intend to blow up hundreds of people. But they aren't going to blow anyone up that day.

Even my radical self can see where some airlines may want to ban guns and bombs. In that case ok, ban guns and bombs and I'll decide whether to fly on your airline, but an airline has no authority to confiscate private property of any sort, or even jail me. They can merely prevent me from boarding. They can't take my water bottle, or hunting knife or whatever. And people can weigh the airlines effectiveness and whether they agree with the policy against the aggravation of the search methods. Even though I think its ineffective, I'd still be willing to subject myself to some passive screening, like dogs or mechanical sniffers for the convenience of getting to Hartford in 6 hours. But the hassle and threat of jailtime for merely joking or rubbing a screener the wrong way...is way outside of bounds. But in the current system I have no choice. The government decides whether I get on a plane and the decision is independent of whether I actually have any dangerous weapons or intent to use them. It is for disobedience. I'm being jailed for disobedience to the government, doesn't that sound wrong?

So the problem isn't just inefficiency of government, its also government monopoly. And here is where people baffle me, coca-cola gets a monopoly on the soda market and people are up in arms about competition, but a government monopoly in force and security, healthcare or whatever else is ok, and even ideal. Or people that think some kinds of government monopoly are good and some types bad. Its mind boggling. What philosophy guides these decisions, it seems like a shutter blowing in the wind. Open close open close.

[Diderich]

[Red Brown]

Originally Posted by DFW_Warrior

So is it the airport's problem? Why? It's there job to keep the infrastructure up and running so the airlines have a place to fly to. Where does security fall into this? And then you have the problems of airport "A" allowing stuff on planes that airport "B" does not.

I agree with Bill. Standardization of security is the best option for airports. I refer to the example of Israeli airport security considered to one of the best in the world and tightly operated by the government. The US could learn a few lesson from them, which involves detailed profiling.

Yes, indeed the Libertarian ideals are quite pollyannaish. The pros/cons of governmental role are fun for debating but don't hold much for real world applications.

Keep up the spirited debated.

RB

[scar04]

The biggest problem I see personally with private sector abuses, Bill, is that the government has created elaborate loopholes that allow them to use less than ethical practices when it comes to lending, credit reporting, and business in general. In certain cases, as we have seen with cable companies prior to the DISH systems, was localized monopolies where certain companies were given a particular region that they controlled, sans competition. Was it bad? I couldn't tell. Was it good? I couldn't tell. Competition has rolled in in the form of widely available satellite providers and I can't tell a lick of difference in quality or pricing. At this point it seems to be who's the least crappy one available. Competition does not always make it better.

I'm not a full on libertarian as some folks here. I believe the Fed needs to be reigned in, yes, ended, not really. I think it needs to stop being an extension of governmental policy and return its focus to monetary policy and focus on the worth of the dollar. I think this whole airline security thing is a pain and a travshamockery of "security" I refuse to fly unless I absolutely have no choice whatsoever. I don't think it would be any better with private companies providing it. The private jail industry, for example, represents how government outsourcing saves the government money, but it's not necessarily better. Because now, people make money off of other people going to jail, which should not be on a profit and loss statement, if you ask me. There are some things I believe the government should provide without a doubt, roads, police service, standing military, protection to consumers from unscrupulous business. The problem is that government has gotten into bed with these guys since it's big business that funds campaigns, so they get a pass or special provisions in laws. Why else do you think the tax code is so convoluted, especially at the corporate and high income brackets? The problem isn't necessarily government as an idea, and it's not business as an idea. It's the practice of government and business spawning off ******* children that are ineffective, volatile, pointless, and down right dangerous.

Oh, and I have to go through a check point any time I leave Laredo going East or North. It's usually nothing more than a pain in the you-know-what. Unfortunately, it's the best method that has been thought up to stop smuggling of humans and illicit drugs. And you really don't want my full opinion on this dumber-than-a-box-of-rocks border wall idea. But that's for another rant....

[Diderich]

Originally Posted by Red Brown

I agree with Bill. Standardization of security is the best option for airports. I refer to the example of Israeli airport security considered to one of the best in the world and tightly operated by the government. The US could learn a few lesson from them, which involves detailed profiling.

Yes, indeed the Libertarian ideals are quite pollyannaish. The pros/cons of governmental role are fun for debating but don't hold much for real world applications.

Keep up the spirited debated.

RB

Its entertaining that you are pointing out that government supplied security is a failure and yet you still support it.

Even more interesting is that imagine that TSA was in charge of world airport security. There would be no Israeli example to compare to. What if some smart israeli had posed this "new" security scheme to the middle bureaucrats? It would have been squashed by inertia. It is obviously beneficial for there to be multiple ideas and freedom to innovate across national borders, so why is it beneficial to have only one idea and implementation of security within our borders? Multiple security agencies within our airport system would serve to ferret out the bad ideas and promote the good ideas, as well as provide a more flexible net for catching bad guys. This is another argument against standardization. This is another reason it would be good to have individual airlines doing their own security instead of a central agency.

[Red Brown]

Originally Posted by Diderich

Its entertaining that you are pointing out that government supplied security is a failure and yet you still support it.

Multiple security agencies within our airport system would serve to ferret out the bad ideas and promote the good ideas, as well as provide a more flexible net for catching bad guys.

Actually the Tower of Babel syndrome of different security groups would be chaotic. Our system is good considering we have much better controls than pre-911 but it could be improved in effectiveness and increased profiling such as the Israeli airport security model suggests might be a step in the right direction.



You guys are scraping for any reason to take the opposite view.