Slashdot Mirror
Paul's Call To Abolish the TSA, One Year Later
A year ago today, we noted that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called for the abolition of the Transportation Security Administration. It's now nearly 12 years since the hijacked-plane terror attacks of 2001; the TSA was created barely two months later, and has been (with various rules, procedures, and equipment, all of it controversial for reasons of privacy, safety, and efficacy) a major presence ever since at American commercial airports. "The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane," wrote Paul last year, and in June of 2012, he followed up by introducing two bills on the topic; the first calling for a "bill of rights" for air travelers, the other for privatizing airport screening practices. Neither bill went far. Should they have? Libertarian-leaning Paul did not succeed in knocking back the TSA, never mind privatizing its functions (currently funded at nearly $8 billion annually), though some of the things called for in his bill of rights are manifest now at least in muted form. (Very young passengers, as well as elderly passengers, face less stringent security requirements, for instance, and TSA has ended its prohibition of certain items aboard planes.) Whether you're from the U.S. or not, what practical changes would you like to see implemented? What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
Every time some disaster hits the US, we're going to see a big growth in the size and reach of government. In fact, I believe there are many politicians who salivate at the thought of catastrophe so they can go cry about the children on camera and create a new 3-letter tumor on our already unconstitutional government.
I mean, come on, this is a government that still administers polygraph examinations for its employees, eight decades after the guy who sold it to the government admitted he made the device up to support his other lifelong work, the Wonder Woman comic book.
The TSA isn't going anywhere folks. Look all the fighting it took to force sequestration, and then take a step back and view it from a different perspective.
Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.
Your ideas are the worst thing to happen to civil discourse.
I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in order to agree with them on some things. So we should find the things we agree on and work to enact those changes.
I do not like the TSA, so when Paul says "let's shut that mother down," I say, "good idea, Rand-o! Lets do this shit!" And when Paul says, "drone strikes?! Blowin up Americans and shit? That ain't right!" I say, "I'd go further than not just blowing up Americans, and we should talk about not blowing up anybody, but it's a start. I'm with you on that!" But when he says "boooo gays!" or "abortions?! For legals? In hospitals and shit? Pssssh! Coat hangers and alleys for you!" I'd say, "naw, gotta disagree with you there buddy."
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. On different topics, you can fully agree, partially agree, or disagree with no contradiction and maybe actually get some stuff you agree on accomplished! Or you can wait until only representatives you agree with on every last issue get elected. Which won't happen. So in the meantime I'm still getting groped every flight.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
iirc he made a call to abolish the tsa and privatize airport security...like how it was before the tsa.
consider this though: if it were privatized, and their employees did something that violated your rights, you would have some realistic hope of legal recourse.
What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
- nonsense question.
There shouldn't even be such a legal document as 'bill of rights', because it is completely misunderstood probably by all to mean that those are your rights and nothing else. Not true, the government has no authority to limit any of your rights, by default you have all of your rights intact.
Government can strip you of your rights temporarily or permanently depending on whether the Constitution authorises that power to government for certain situations (like taxing your transactions, it's loss of a right, but at least it's Constitutional).
Saying that there should be an "airplane passenger bill of rights" is like saying that there should be a "bill of rights for blacks" or "bill of rights for gays" or "bill of rights for women" or "bill of rights for employees", none of it makes any sense, you have all of your rights regardless of your group and association, you shouldn't lose your rights for reasons that are outside of the power authorised to the government by the Constitution, yet here we are.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
How would returning airport security to private hands remove accountability? It would do just the opposite.
Notice how mall cops don't hassle anybody? Except maybe kids skateboarding in the parking lot? And why? Because if a mall cop stops you for no good reason and demands to search your bags or something, you call the management. The manager comes out, reprimands the mall cop for harassing the customers, apologizes profusely to you, Sir, and gives you a gift certificate to the food court.
When a government cop hassles you and you demand to speak to his superior, expect to get tased, beaten and charged with assaulting an officer.
I would much rather have private security personnel working for the airports and airlines than government officials. The rent-a-cops at least have an economic incentive to not treat you like shit. The government cops have no incentive to give a fuck, and so they don't.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
Wow, that just substitutes the past 9000 years of history for pop psychology that wouldn't survive a 101-level course. Since I can't say it better:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't care about 'libertarianism.' I care about getting the TSA abolished. So when Rand says "let's abolish the TSA," he gets my support on that issue, and I will gladly write my representatives to tell them I'd like them to work with Paul on this topic.
That does not explicitly or implicitly express support or opposition to any of his other positions. As far as "voting for the package," it's too late for that. He's already been elected. After they've been elected, we absolutely do vote on issues separately (except in the all-too-frequent cases where irrelevant riders are attached to important bills).
Politicians are trainable, and react to incentives just like anybody else. When a politician says something you like, cheer. When he says something you don't like, boo. Do this often enough and they'll learn to do the things that earn them treats instead of swats with a rolled-up newspaper. But if you just keep smacking him no matter what he does (or still cheering him on even when he wets on the carpet), he'll never learn.
Coincidentally, Paul needs some corrective action right now. A few months back he did a really good job with that filibuster about drone strikes on US soil. Good boy, Rand, good boy! But, a week or two ago, he came out and said he'd have no problem with a drone killing the Boston bombers, or a 'robber running out of a store with a sack of money and a gun.' Boo, Rand, boo! No, that's bad Rand! In this house we respect due process, and the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers before you get a missile shot at your face. But, if you can see what you did wrong there and learn from your mistake, we might scratch you behind your ears again.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Indeed, and before the creation and repeatedly increased power of the Corporation to shield people from the consequences of their actions, when businesses were primarily local affairs, and communities were close-knit enough to be a strong motivator to most people, that theory held reasonably well. In the modern world though we've drifted into a situation where psychopathic behaviour is encouraged and rewarded within large corporations, especially within the financial sector. Andthe massive increase in population and ease of transportation has degraded community to the point where it tends to be restricted to your co-workers and chosen social network rather than being heavily determined by geography. The result being that you get groups of people who are encouraged to ever more psycopathic behaviour and are surrounded primarily by others who are likewise encouraged, resulting in something of a social echo-chamber effect that tends to spiral out of control.
This perception is backed by many psychology experiments that show, among other things, that ethics tend to be heavily dependent on peer pressure - if an aparent member of your social group blatantly cheats and gets away with it, you become far more likely to do the same.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.