It was written:

Or, are you arguing that the general public does not benefit directly from increased airport security? If so, there are all sorts of services that do not benefit the general public directly that are funded out of government funds

My reply:

You are correct that is my argument. And as for your rebuttal, I agree with your assertion but that does nto mean taht waht you are asserting is "right" or the "way it should be".

It was also written:

The reason is that the non-flying public gets just as much protection from airport security as the flying public.
The WTC attack is costing over $100B by itself, and most of that money isn't coming from the people who were on the planes, nor is it coming from the airlines. Most (well really all) of that money is coming from the taxpayers who were on the ground at the time.

My reply:

And I remain of the opinion that the costs of this should be born by the companies involved (the airlines) and the people who travel. Just because we are gouging the tax-payer to subsidize the airlines, whom in my opinion deserve to go out of business, and rebuild New York (my heart goes out to all those who lost their lives, and their families) does not automatically make it just or right. Personally I am tired of New York, tired of LA, and tired of Chicago forcing those who chose to live in other parts of the country to subsidize their lifestyle. At present that is my opinion. An opinion probably formed on in ignorance and incomplete information as we have never truly publicly debated this issue in modern times in our nation (it was debated strongly at the time of the countries founding).

My guess is most on the Flyer Talk forum have a natural bias on this issue. But if you look at the voting map of last election, you can see that the country is not evenly divided by geographic region based on the ideology of the two major political parties. Part of that ideology stems from lifestyle in rural, urban, and metropolitan areas, and of course the normalizing factor is the liberal nation wide school system of so called education.

What I am getting at is I am jut a “lil ol country boy” that likes the ”simple things” and appreciates Appalachian culture and the like. And I know my friends, my acquaintances in these areas see this as a “big city problem” and a problem for all those “business folks” who travel or the “rich” who can afford vacations. Frankly I am not so sure they are wrong. Obviously to me, this extends outside the confines of this single issue but I find it interesting when the Government started to withhold flood insurance and refused to reinsure those who would not rebuild their homes above 100 year flood plains after the Mississippi flood a few years back.

In other words, if you want to live in some areas, it is on your dime, your problem, your headache. And national relief funds were not cut to all areas. It was based on political clout.

So in summary, I think Flyer talk has a demographic bias and a proclivity toward Government intervention (unless it is Flyer Talkers business – for some reason they think the Government ought to keep out of that) in terms of “security”. And for some reason Flyer Talk members seem to think the entire country, many of whom never travel, should foot the bill in one of the largest well-fare bailouts ever.

Just my thoughts, and I suspect most will disagree. And I am sure many of you can flip out example after example and I can counter example. I think this boils down to a matter of principle. Should every tax payer in this nation bear a tax burden to subsidize large businesses, and the small segment of the population that are frequent flyers on a daily basis, or should the cost of infrastructure be paid on a usage basis. I think it should be based on usage.

Excelsior, TFB