Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21161323)

Not at all.

The risk of passengers varies so little

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21161323)

-- given how few terrorists there are in the US

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21161323)

Do you really believe that the DL fees cover all the costs of issuing DLs in each and every state in the US? Apparently you should check out a lot more state government budgets and historical budgeting practices.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21161323)

Government using "user fees" as a "market-based economic" solution? Talk about a trick played on the naive or self-dealing. That the government established a fee for use is more usually the antithesis of a market-based economic solution.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162270)

Lets see if I got this right:

1. income tax based on wages paid by 1/2 the population redistributed at the will of government bureaucrats through general revenue to fund "free" services with no accountability versus ....

2. Paying a fee for service at the point of service for discretionary consumption at a known price applied equally to all purchasers.

Which one is more consistent with the way you buy groceries (other than food stamps of course)?

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21162547)

Why does it need to be consistent with the way you buy groceries? Government is not a business, and unlike the grocery store, it is not trying to turn a profit.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162270)

Lets see if I got this right:

1. income tax based on wages paid by 1/2 the population redistributed at the will of government bureaucrats through general revenue to fund "free" services with no accountability versus ....

2. Paying a fee for service at the point of service for discretionary consumption at a known price applied equally to all purchasers.

Which one is more consistent with the way you buy groceries (other than food stamps of course)?

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21162811)

The cost for the relative risk distinction determination is what, $85 per person? :D ROTFLOL :D

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21162811)

It would take a whole lot more expenditure than that in order to even start to have a chance in distinguishing the "security" "risk" between two ordinary passengers in the US.

Originally Posted by GUWonder (Post 21162811)

Neither. The above two example sets are not examples of how (open) market economic transactions take place in arriving at costs and/or prices.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162603)

Which one of the two examples presented is more consistent with a market based approach in terms of economic structure?

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162603)

My argument simply put continues to be very clear....air security processes can be varied across individuals based on relative risk and that the cost of the relative risk assessment and hence assignment to risk strata should be paid for as a fee for service not be absorbed by a general revenue, Tax based redistribution.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162603)

Seems both the vendor and I are satisfied with the price. How is this different than a $85 user fee for expedited security screening? The fact that the government is doing it? Its not a tax - if you dont like the price, you are not obligated to pay it. The government sets the price - not any different than the barber, and you make the choice. No one says they need to be smart about it - but thats not the point, now is it.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21163475)

I am wondering why you think it should be a "market-based approach" in the first place. Why should anything the government does be market-based? As I said earlier, they are not a business, and the government exists to serve the people, not to turn a profit.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21163475)

So let's say the government were to determine, based on statistical evidence, that group X poses a larger security risk than the general population. Therefore, they are either singled out for additional screening or offered the opportunity to pay for a background check to verify that they do not pose a heightened risk.

The problem is that the government is now discriminating against individuals in group X without any evidence that they individually pose any risk.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21163475)

They are made to pay money in order to get the same treatment that others get for free. You don't see anything wrong with that?

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21163475)

Group x may be defined in terms of any variable: age, amount of miles flown, selection by dog, instinct of staff, possession of credit card, etc.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21163475)

The difference is that the government has a monopoly on the service. Therefore, they are held to a higher standard of fairness and responsibility. If the TSA does something unfair or improper, the free market will not automatically fix it like it would with a barbershop.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21163786)

We rate car insurance based on group membership - younger driveres pay more, those who have had fewer accidents or tickets pay less, good students get a discount, women pay less then men....we rate life insurance that way too - you pay more as you get older not because you are dead but but because you are more likely, statistically, to die. We select people for entry into college based on the SAT score because it has a degree of predictive validity - higher scores increase the individuals probability of graduating.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21163786)

They are required to pay for the assessment necessary to classify them as a member of the low risk group. No one is mandating it, no one is forcing them to do it - it is offered as an option and you can opt in.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162145)

There is not one person yet who has posted that there is a zero risk - all have acknowledged that there is a risk and that some security is necessary. Not my canard - yours.



It doubles the risk. Simple math. If you were correct, "...with no ill-effect on security," then no security would be equally as efficacious.



Actually, a passenger is either a terrorist or not is the correct analogy. Absent a test, one cannot establish the "threat" status. One can, however, establish the relative risk of being (or not being) a terrorist.



I understand probability - please do me a favor though - find me the 0.1%. That's the whole purpose of this isn't it? Ensuring that the 0.1% are found before they can become martyrs.



Because I understand probability theory? Each passenger has an assigned probability of being a terrorist and that absent any additional information that probability is the population probability. Add additional predictors and the probability no longer is the population probability but rather the probability of the refined cohort. If you can refine multiple cohorts you now have a distribution of probabilities across the population. This distribution defines the variance - its math, not politics or emotion. Granted, what those factors are is up for debate - though if you've ever flown ELAL you get a sense that there are valid factors.



You are arguing the process not the concept. Let me reiterate, TSA is the most ineffectual piece of government monstrosity every devised by man. It is, unfortunately, what we are asked to tolerate in the interest of aviation safety. I'm all for getting rid of every single smurf. You?

But in the meantime, lets try the pregnancy game.

You have 100 people in a room. We know that one of them is pregnant - which one is it?

Each one gets two sequential blood tests, a urine test, and an ultrasound. We find that the pregnant person is person #46. We have assumed that every person in the room has an equal chance of being pregnant - equal "risk" so to speak.

Can we do better?

Of course. In the room of 100, there were 50 men and 50 women - do we need to test the men? Likely not. So instead of 100 comprehensive exams, we only do 50, the men save time and money.

In the room of 50 women - one is still pregnant. Ten are post menopausal - hence, they have a very low risk of being pregnant. Leaves us 40. Of those 40, 10 are pre-menarch - not a non-zero risk but certainly lower than the population of all women taken together. Leaves us 30. Of those, 20 insist that they use birth control. We know that BCPs are about 97% effective so their chances are less than those who do not take BCPs.

What do you do? You could test all 50 because they are women. Certainly each one doesn't have the same chance of being pregnant, but as women its not totally biologically impossible. On the other hand, you could only test those defined in medicine as being of child bearing potential, or you could only test those of child bearing potential not reporting the use of birth control.

In the end you have 100, 50, 30, or 10 people who qualify for the intensive high cost time consuming evaluation because they represent those at the highest probability of being pregnant.

Lets adapt this to the TSA:

One could forgo any testing and wait to see if one of the people gives birth - by default, that's the pregnant one - i.e. the terrorist.

One could test everyone with a simple inexpensive blood test - with a known error rate. This is WTMD orr WWM, or whatever. Or, one could test everyone using BKSTR and secondary patdowns and body cavity searches - depends how much sensitivity you want in your test, how much time you have and how much money you want to spend.

CAUTION - THESE ARE ONLY EXAMPLES AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY PERSONAL BIASES OR PREJUDICES - THESE ARE EXAMPLES!

One could test only the women - applied to TSA test only those who are non-frequent fliers or those not qualified under TT programs. Sort of like your 50% rule.

One could test only those of child bearing potential - i.e only non-citizen non-FF non-GEers.

One could test only those who don't use birth control - i.e. non-citizen non-FF non-GEers of Arab descent on student visas.

What TSA has done is said we can differentiate risk based on two criteria - Frequent Flier Status or background characteristics. This is no different than me as a doctor not doing an expensive and definitive range of r/o preg labs and clinical evaluations on an 85 year old man complaining of nausea in the morning. Just because he has nausea (getting on an airplane) its not due to pregnancy (being a terrorist).

Whether or not the criteria are correct is immaterial to the argument that differential risk exists and the cost of differentiation should be born by the individual.

Your arguments that each individual has an equal risk and moreover that non-screening in a proportion of the population because of this particularly because of your assertion that the risk, though non-zero is infinitesimally small is non-consequential to airline security are fallacious.

Its not about policy or process - its simple math and probability theory and market rationality

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21164372)

Private companies can get away with that type of statistical discrimination. For example, car insurance companies have determined that women drive more safely than men, so they pay less for insurance. The TSA may very well determine, with statistical evidence, that women pose less of a security risk than men, but they could not legally take this into account.

Originally Posted by Bicostal (Post 21162986)

I'm not entirely sure how you pay for your haircut or get your lawn mowed or oil changed....but my barber, my gardner, and Pet Boys charge me the same as they would charge you and no one gets a freebie. I pay $50 dollars and get the service. Seems both the vendor and I are satisfied with the price. How is this different than a $85 user fee for expedited security screening? The fact that the government is doing it? Its not a tax - if you dont like the price, you are not obligated to pay it. The government sets the price - not any different than the barber, and you make the choice. No one says they need to be smart about it - but thats not the point, now is it.

Originally Posted by CPT Trips (Post 21164968)

Whoa, wait a minute. Not everyone pays the same price for the same service from the same provider.

I got my car's most recent oil change free at Pep Boys as a reward for being a good patron. The one before that was $10 at Midas through a social media site. I got a free haircut today because a new shop opened and they want business. Usually i get it cut 1/2 price on Senior day. My neighbor shaves his head himself, similar to me cutting my own grass.

TSA doesn't allow for any of this.

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 21164430)

I'm no math major but I can count. Counting 9/11, the shoe bomber, and the skivvy bomber there have been around 21 known terrorist vs the 1.6 , give or take, million peoples who have flown daily in the past 12 years. That demonstrates that the risk of any one person being a terrorist is near nil. On the other hand TSA already knows enough about each traveler to mitigate the threat. Only people without history need full screening, all others should get express screening and at no additional cost since this would be cheaper for everyone.
There is no reason to charge extra fees since under my plan TSA would save considerable amounts of our tax dollars, increase throughput, and lower man power needs all without jeapordizing security.