why does no one point out that TSA kills people?
 

Follow the logic:

1) TSA makes flying more costly in terms of time and annoyance.

2) Folks decide to drive rather than fly short-haul legs because of this annoyance and increased time element.

3) Driving is a lot more dangerous than flying.

4) More people die on the road than they would have if they had flown.

Yet, I see very few people making this argument. Why?

Think of the children citizen!

As sympathetic as I am to the cause, I think it's because you can level that sort of argument in any direction.

Someone could argue, for instance, that the time that passengers spend standing in line waiting for security decreases the chances of DVT. Or, that high employment for screeners decreases the number of people who are employed in relatively hazardous jobs like deep fry cook, ditch digger, or university medical experiment subject.

Both arguments seem reasonable in my book. :)

What I can't get is why are the planes so full if everyone is so scared off by the TSA? I know capacity was cut a lot, but still...

The computer we're typing on right now was likely made in some other country, such as Malaysia. Thus, we kept money out of American hands, and one of those hands could have fed a child healthier food, and that poor eating will cause said child to have diabetes when it gets older, thus driving up health insurance costs for everyone in the future.

I'm certainly against the TSA and its useless, Kabuki Theater, heavy-handed tactics. But that's really stretching it a bit.

I think that has a lot to do with it. Amtrak's profits are up, though.

People make this argument all the time. Haven't you see "BUY AMERICAN" signs? You've never been encouraged to buy a Ford? Why do you think that is?

On the other hand, a kid in Malaysia probably has healthier food and a better life.

I don't know why people don't consider this sort of nationalistic argument as repugnant as racism. People are not more or less deserving of care or options because of their birth country -- any more than they would be because of their skin color.

BTW, I don't claim you were making that argument. For all I know it was just an example.

Precisely. I share your cosmopolitan outlook. States, and the nationalistic tendencies that they generate, are dangerous.

It was. Just something to point out the "outsourced" nature to ANY country.

I just used Dell's model of building computers in Malaysia as an example.

States are dangerous?? Interesting extension of the viewpoint that we are all one people - to be governed by one world body.

I wouldn't have thought of that.
BTW: I think the argument that more people drive b/c of TSA borders on nonsense - but that's just my opinion.

Best, Dave

nameplates mean nothing
 

Fords contain many imported components, and depending on the model may not be assembled in the US at all.

As to the OP's comment, I find it stretching credulity a bit. If you take that line of thinking, increased airfares "kill" people by encouraging driving.

I think states are natural phenomena.. as inevitable as ant hills and, yes, they are dangerous. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have them or ever will.

Re driving, I'm sure there's been an uptick, but we'll never be able to determine the extent to which it's because of security at airports, or because of the decayed state of airline customer service.

I think that's the fascinating thing about all of this. Something like that is undeniably true. Imagine.. if all airlines jacked their rates by 50% over night, fewer people would die. And, the same thing would happen if the speed limit was reduced to 20MPH nationwide.

Policy choices do kill people or keep them alive. I suspect that people don't like to think in those terms because they don't want to feel responsible.