Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[inquest]

Has it occurred to you that you're arguing against a position that I haven't taken? You might want to scan the big paragraph in my last post a little more attentively this time.

But since you brought it up, there probably would be a couple of differences with Air Inquest - assuming this guy's story is kosher. For one, his wife's bulging belly wouldn't have been on display for all to see, and for another, he wouldn't have been arrested for getting upset (kicked out of the airport, maybe, but not arrested). Overall, the air screeners would be more professional, without the smug federal-employee attitude that we've come to know and love. And if you call this toll-free number on your screen... umm, never mind. Just practicing.

[general_re]

Has it occurred to you that you're arguing against a position that I haven't taken?

Am I? Or am I discussing the consequences of the position you have taken? For example, what will you say to the banana-and-chimp wearer when he demands that your wife lift her shirt right there in the terminal? Will you claim that the 4'th Amendment restricts his actions also? Or will you simply leave and take advantage of the alternatives - alternatives which you already have?

[inquest]

What possibly suggests to you that I would consider that the 4th amendment restricts the actions of private enterprises? Are you getting the point of the paragraph that I referred you to?

[general_re]

What possibly suggests to you that I would consider that the 4th amendment restricts the actions of private enterprises?

I understand very well that you don't think such - it was really a rhetorical question. The question is, what will you do then?

[inquest]

I don't understand why you're asking me what I would do then. I'd have to make the decision as the situation calls for it. But in any case, getting the feds out of the picture would significantly reduce the likelihood that I or anyone else would be in such a situation. I honestly and truly believe that it would improve the professionalism of the security staff, without diminishing the safety they provide. I don't know if that addresses the point you were trying to raise.

[general_re]

I honestly and truly believe that it would improve the professionalism of the security staff, without diminishing the safety they provide. I don't know if that addresses the point you were trying to raise.

My point was that the advantage of privatization that is usually touted is that you can always take advantage of some alternative if your airline does something you don't like. But you have those alternatives now. If airport security bothers you, you always have other choices, same as you would under any privatization plan.

And I don't know that there's a real problem there to be solved in the first place, this article notwithstanding. I've flown a half-dozen times since 9/11, and the security people in all the airports I've been through have been uniformly professional about the whole affair - and I must fit some sort of profile, since they invariably ask me to remove my shoes.

This aticle runs counter to my own experience, and I see no evidence that there is some sort of epidemic of abuse by screeners. If that's the case, privatizing solves a non-existent problem, and there's no reason at all to do it.

[inquest]

OK, that's fine, but as I was trying to explain to you earlier, that's not my main concern. I started talking about it a little because you kept bringing it up, but the main concern I have was expressed in the bottom paragraph of Post 1139. It has to do with the powers that government becomes closer to acquiring using this as a stepping stone, not with the inconveniences that result from being searched. Yes, my instinct is that unnecessary inconveniences would be lessened somewhat under a free-market system, while you don't seem to think it's too likely, but that's not the matter that I've been raising.