Twilight of TSA
 

(love punchy thread titles)

OK, so since the TSA-haters so often repeat "no security failure was involved in 9/11", I've thought of a modest proposal. Give security back to those who had it before Bush barged in. Don't give them any standards at all. We've seen how government standards work. Private security claims they met them chapter and verse and therefore are exempt from blame. So switch entirely to a results orientation. I know corporate management thrives with results orientation. Tell them "you get a bonus when you get these results" and they turn heaven and earth to get t hose results. But no bonuses here. The government should never pay you for doing your responsibility. I know that's a popular "solution", but its a ridiculous waste of funds.

Instead, say this "You are responsible to make sure your airplanes are never used as a weapon against people or property". Do it however you think is right, but don't fail. Why? Because you all may be out of jobs. Congress will explicitly authorize any lawsuit on behalf of anyone injured by your failure. No cap on liability. And in particular, if the plaintiffs decide instead of some dollar figure (that can be reduced on appeal) that your corporation can be liquidated as a punitive judgment, with assets sold to pay plaintiffs, their lawyers, the stockholders, and creditors, then a guilty verdict will mean the end of your airline. That's the pot in this card game. Terrorists slip through your security and there's a good chance YOU are dead meat, not just whoever they aim the plane at. Why should any airline survive the use of its plane as a bomb. I can't think of a reason. They are the ones who let the perpetrators aboard. Private securities will gladly put people aboard your flights to provide a last ditch means of defense. And you'll pay them because you always pay what is necessary for your corporation to survive. It is "a cost of business".

I don't know how eagerly airlines will push to get the responsibility back, but if they really want it, then give it to them. The people who hate TSA can now have the chance to hate airlines who want to stay alive.

I have a better idea: get the federal government 100% the hell out of airport security and then tell the airlines that aircraft and airport safety is their responsibility. Let passengers choose who they wish to use, let cowards stay home, and let the chips fall where they may. In the meantime, start prosecuting the scumbags "in charge" of TSA.

Why would you omit the other parts? Do you find them, for some reason, "unjust"? And passengers already have the choice of airline. That's not a change.

The disgusting, un-American "security" currently presented by the joke known as TSA is a constant. Let the airlines compete on security as well. That way, passengers can decide for themselves if a sicko shoe perversion is warranted, or whether some little scumbag named Kip Hawley's assertion that 1 quart of liquids in a plastic bag is safe. The airline that requires no ID may be preferred to some carbon dioxide scrubber pouring over one's ID.

The federal government should have *zero* say in airline or airport security. Their disgusting, un-American occupation of airports should be terminated immediately.

Just another thoughtless anti-TSA tirade. I guess Spiff is grandstanding for the crowd. No point in really trying to move the spotlight off him. Between Spiff and the spotlight is a dangerous place to be. Let's wait to see if anyone with a less-known MO cares to ponder directions things could go without a TSA.

I don't want the spotlight on me, ace. You asked, I answered. Instead of focusing on me, why not address the issues that you raised?

All I want is the federal government thrown out of my airports. Prosecution of the the scumbags "in charge" (past and present) of TSA would be a bonus.

Oh sure, Spiff. You never try to outhate every other hater. Never. "Ace". What are you, a time refugee from the '40s?

It's true, sport. ;)

I express my own opinions and don't try to "out-do" anyone else. You might want to look around sometime.

Time to treat you like the screaming babies in the store. Attention only eggs you on.

Look, champ: you're not even focusing on the question that you posed here. Why not give that a shot instead of attempting to shoot the messenger?

Aaaaaaaal we are saaaaaaaying.....
 

...is give Convenant Aviation Security, Inc. (or Wackenhut or whatever) a chaaaaaance!

http://www.securitymanagement.com/ne...-breach-006648

Although our friend Spiff here also expresses ideological reasons for dumping TSA, I'll stick with the practical one: TSA is not very good at providing security.

OK, but don't give them an out. Its security or die, just like the passengers depending on them. None of these wimpy excuses people have made for them over the years. And remember, the first plane that goes down is proof they are not even up to TSA's standard, whatever that is.

When will a moderator move this thread to OMNI? :rolleyes:

I think that I can answer that one: LAF (pronounce the abbreviation :p) is only looking for attention, never responding to questions or leaving conversations after having been proved wrong, yet again.

I am not an economist, so excuse any inaccuracies.

The cost of the TSA extends beyond the direct financial costs of the agency. It is just that the financial cost is the easiest to measure. There are at least three more "costs" that could be evaluated. Each of these will have corresponding costs or saving from the elimination of the TSA.

The OP mentioned the value of TSA and that they prevent the loss of lives. Let's say, by no means proven, that they have prevented loss of life from airline terrorism. There is a possibility, maybe even a probability, that the problems of dealing with the TSA forces some travelers to seek other, less safe methods of travel, just to avoid the airport. This increase in loss of life is the result of the presence of the TSA. How much is it?

Related to this is the loss of productivity. If every traveler gets to the airport earlier to deal with the security process, that is time taken away from the opportunity to be productive. It is a cost that is small in many individual cases but multiplied over many many millions of incidences it becomes a huge loss of productivity. This loss of productivity is directly the result of the presence and methods of the TSA.

In addition, is the cost of loss of liberty. This may be the most difficult and the most controversial. That does not mean we should not look at it. Our system is unique, or was, in that it provided for individual liberty at the expense of government power.

The TSA reduces individual liberty and it increases government power. (By the way, if you do not agree with this statement, then we will have a difficult time discussing any thing else in this post.)

What is the cost of loss of liberty? Liberty was bought with the loss of life and treasure to gain it and preserve it. If we are to surrender this paid-for liberty on a piecemeal basis, the we devalue the cost that was paid to buy this liberty.

We may decide that our security has a higher value than our liberty. If we do, then the OP is correct, the TSA performs a function of value, perceived or actual security, paid for in the loss of liberty.

As for me, it is a sad time. We have reached a point where our liberty has little value. We have lost the awe and admiration for the possibility that individuals acting in their own self-interest can put together a superior system of economics and governance. We elect elites to determine what is best for us and at what cost.

And that is why many of us do not like the TSA. It is not an opposition to what they are trying to do as airline safety is an admirable goal. It is an opposition to the incremental surrender of liberty to achieve that goal.