Most mobs of men won't attack you if you don't break their rules, or, "laws."

They know that having to use such force is costly. They'd rather you just give up your money, time, or whatever it is of yours that they want without having to attack you. But ultimately, if you succeed for long enough at keeping what is yours from them, they will attack you. The lifestyle they desire cannot be sustained with you being left at liberty.

You said that you wished to be able to interact with the business the way you and the business choose. I am saying you already do, the business decided the plan they wanted and off you go.

That they already have the power and choose not to exercise it. Because they don't want the expenditure.

So the less-powerful don't want to enter a market where one of the largest expenditures and operating costs is completely paid for them? That doesn't track.

The state mandates X be done, but then pays for it. What's the problem? Where is the limiting factors?

Of course the market wants security. No reasonable person really believes an airline that starts up with no security will be flown my ma and pa kettle. The only question is - how much and who pays for it?

If the business pays for it then it will more than likely be the balancing act of risk versus cost. How much do we risk losing if we're wrong vs. how much are we paying out every day. This is what we saw pre-9/11 with the security forces in place.

I beg to differ. This is exactly what the airlines wanted.

Then your agency isn't necessary.

Of course, you don't know what the existing airline companies and future entrants to the market would choose to provide.

Or because it would cause a backlash that would jeopardize the power they do have.

Then there's no need for the government to enforce or protect it.

You are arguing that the government is necessary to enforce something every single airline and future airline operator wants anyway. That is just silly.

I am arguing that there is a service that a business does wants to provide but does not want to pay for. If they can find/pawn off/trick/cajole/shoehorn/con into doing it for them, they will. And did.

The fact that its the government doing it is irrelevant. Again its the ACTOR and not the ACT.

Now, if you want to argue the NECESSITY of having travel regulations, that is a viable discussion. The government does require and enforce those. Maybe absent those requirements the business wouldn't provide them. But the PROVIDER of the service is irrelevant for our discussion.

In essence, do we need any kind of security at all in civilian aviation? Should businesses be allowed to provide as much or as little security as they wish? That's legit.

But, if we accept that such regulations are valid, then its just a question of who pays for it, the business or Other Entity.

Some do, some don't. Some did, some didn't. Some might, some might not.

It's not irrelevant because someone else doing it could be pushed out of the way by new entrants not wanting the service, airlines that change their minds, etc.

Government force is necessary for the survival of the TSA solely because some airlines or future airline operators either don't now or in the future might not want the TSA.

Yeah, just spend it into bankruptcy so a foreign power can march right in and repo stuff. :rolleyes:

Of course, puffers working only in X% of cases is significantly higher than the amount of explosives detected with x-rays: 0%.

Which is what TSA should be doing anyway instead of throwing a bunch of money down the toilet to try to avoid all risk. Instead, it should be allocating more resources to things that truly are a threat (bombs, guns, etc) and less to things that are much less threatening (water, etc). Instead, we see the reverse happening.

But it sure looks good. :rolleyes:

People holding unlimited credit cards backed by their own printing press, guns, and other people's time and money don't usually care too much about economic efficiency or even the efficacy of their actions. I know I certainly wouldn't. Can't really think of anyone who would. Noble and pure in character as Kip Hawley and his 60,000 Christ-like employees are, I still doubt they will ever be any different in this regard.

Well at least to be fair, I'd have to say inefficiency is endemic to any large organization, government or not. I see a lot of waste, red tape and inefficiency in the company I work for. Very large company in the Fortune 20. You should see how long it takes to get someone a job offer sometimes.

Not as much as you might believe. They have quite a balancing act to perform. The subsidies that Feds pay for keeping the fleets in standby, the loans that have been made, etc. are matters within the industry that keep the airlines from using full force -- don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

1. The TSA is limited to how many employees it is authorized. So why take on a job it can't handle.

2. The TSA generally has only been able to lease the area beginning past the queue. So the airlines can do what they want on the property they lease.

3. The TSA is taking over the ID checking function at more airports.

4. I haven't seen very many airports where the TSA even cared to double-check ID's. In fact, my travels recently have shown they aren't even looking at boarding passes.

What the airlines primarily didn't want was the liability associated with security.

Wait until their is a union and the TSO's decide to work to the rules. That will cause a massive slowdown and a ripple effect throughout the airline industry.

Of course. The market isn't inherently perfect. Just inherently better than state monopoly.

If I am paying the credit card bill, I might not use that card with perfect efficiency, but I sure as fonk am going to use it a lot more efficiently than if I know you are paying the bill (and will be forced to do so no matter what I do).

Consider how panicked you'd be if you learned I had your credit card, and, for some reason, you were going to be forced to pay it no matter what I did. Seriously think about that, and you'll understand why I hate the US government. Because it has my "credit card" (and yours)... and a whole, whole, whole lot more.

War (or, "national security"), is the health of the state.

DING DING DING DING we have a winner.

The reason that airlines accept the TSA (and FAA regulation, for that matter) is to move liability off of them and on to the FAA. That and having Federal regulations provide pre-emption of state/local regs. It's a time honored technique for large industries.

And, in part, having such a Federal system allows the airlines to be insurable at a reasonable cost.

The recent moves by the airlines to try and make the FAA privatize ATC come because the airlines figure 1) that the savings to them by pushing fixed/sunk costs onto GA will offset any potential liability, and 2) they believe that the control of the system (and the ability to control airspace access) will gain benefits. By making it a quasi-Federal corp, the liability won't fall back on the airlines.

For those of us low in the food chain, we don't have a TS clearance. Hell, I don't know if what we have even qualifies for a clearance. I've been told that we are in a "public trust" position. All I know is that the background check TSA performed rivaled the old SBIs I had for my TS/SCI clearances when I was in the Army. At any rate, when we first started at TSA, we weren't necessarily told we couldn't join unions; but we certainly were discouraged. This week we received an email from Kip Hawley reminding us that we've always been able to join unions and in not so many words were encouraged not to join. It's a masterfully written piece that keeps him out of legal hot water yet subtly gets the message across.