Life is all about taking chances. I am not afraid of pointy objects. If you are, you should seek counseling for you Aichmophobia.


------------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin

I have no fear of pointy objects, but I guess someone did.

No risk can be eliminated. Most risks can be made smaller but many times at an unreasonable cost. What we are seeing in the area of airport "security" is that the cost of minimizing risks have risen to unacceptable levels. That's the harm.

(Edited for spelling, again)

[This message has been edited by L-1011 (edited 02-27-2003).]

If we really wanted to eliminate ALL risk, we would assign a squad of police (or LEOs, as the TSA likes to call them -- how cute!) to accompany each passenger on his or her trip. Then, if the passenger does anything out of the ordinary -- coughing, raising his voice, whatever -- the squad of police could physically restrain him or her until the plane could land or the accompanying jet fighters could shoot it down. We don't do that for lots of rather obvious reasons, but at least one of them is the COST.

The same logical analysis applies to the TSA. Much of what is goes on at airports today is simply too expensive for society to afford. We should cut back to a reasonable level of security before our society strangles itself economically.

Bruce

I am thinking along the same lines as you. I was in the safety business for a few years and the was a constant ordeal. Risk will never be eliminated , but it can be reduced.

Eliminating risk should fall upon the shoulders of the airlines also. There is a company that makes explosive absorbant containers that have tested with the amount of estimated explosives of flight 103 which had outstanding results. Will the airlines buy them? Probably not while the government is providing security. Will they make their aircraft more secure in the cabin area, probably not unless the government forces them.Why does the government have to burden the load of a private industry?

Interesting philosophical point. Let's consider a big shopping mall. If someone gets picked up shoplifting and the mall security call the police, should the police say, "Hey, you built that big mall; you take care of your own security." I guess to some extent they do; after all, that's why malls hire private security. But at some point, the real government comes in and takes over. I guess something like that is going on now with airlines.

It's even trickier with airports, because most of those are run by government already, although not the Federal government.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I want appropriate security, no matter who pays for it. I don't want a lot of silly, ineffective things done in the name of security. As a very frequent flyer, my main concern is the hassle factor. I don't really believe that the terrorist risk is very high (no matter what color Tom Ridge chooses today!).

Bruce

I think the goverment should pay to have them installed. They can use the money they will save from dismantling the TSA. The fact of the matter is, a terrorist could place a bomb anywhere, not just on a plane so why should just the airlines have to provide such extreme protection?

Very astute point, TSADude.

The point you are making could be recast as follows: any service government "provides" fills a need that might otherwise be filled by the private sector.

I don't think Bruce's mall example is on point. The mall expects the police to show up and arrest a shoplifter, but if the mall wants mall security, it pays for this privately.

The state has a basic monopoly on the use of force, so at this point the state must take over, but not to watch for shoplifters which is a private function.

Since the TSA is saying "security is our bag now," the airlines will quite rightly stop worrying about security. If the government had picked the system that it should have, it would have picked a system of better government oversight with duties performed privately, and the airlines would have more of an active interest in security.

That is one of the many problems with the TSA: it is like having the government patrol private stores looking for shoplifters. The government has no way to calculate what is a good investment and what is not.

The airlines, like all real businesses, make this calculus every day. After all, a bomb in an airplane is not good business, and the airlines have every incentive to provide good security. The government really does not. It has every incentive to spend oodles of money, shut down terminals, evacuate airports, hold people up, because there is no real cost to it of doing so.

The solution is to privatize air security and provide standards and government oversight like we do to assure a safe food supply. Then the airlines are squarely responsible again for security, and they can assess their pax extra dollars and pay for things like bomb-resistant holds. And if they don't then they can go out of business and another airline will do those things and get people's business. If it takes a disaster for that to happen, well, it would happen anyway. I trust private competitive businesses much more than I trust some government agency.

Oh yea, the FDA does a bang up job.

So how much Enron / Worldcom stock did you own ?

None.

Let's turn the tables: So how long are you working this year solely for the benefit of federal, state and local government? I believe, in my case, it's already right around the first of May.



Mook

Price of Freedom.

The government is incompetent, not particularly accountable, and impossible to control.

Private companies have one motive, which is profit, so at least you know where they stand.

Don't search my wallet, please.

Profit can be reduced by large fines for non compliance of the regulations. This would have to be a key factor in order for it to work effectively.

172 posts in 2 months! Incredible!

edited to keep up with the increasing number.

[This message has been edited by 1K wannabe (edited 02-28-2003).]