I thought we were discussing the best way to make a decision, not how to get people what they want. I prefer a system where people interact by choice (free market), you prefer a system where people are coerced to interact (government). When the government makes the decision, you pay for it whether you like it or not. When the market makes the decision, you are free to keep your money if you do not like the choices the market gives you. You have repeatedly stated that you wish airline security to be done the way it is and apparently you like paying for it. I do not like the current system, so I don't fly, but because the government made the decision I have to pay for the system anyway.
You would prefer to be subject to the decision made by a faceless bureaucrat who has no particular knowledge of the needs and desires of those effected by his decisions. I would prefer to be subject to the decision made by people who lose money if too many of the paying customers decide to opt out of the market because they do not like the decision made.
The difference between market decisions and government decisions is that you can choose to not partake in market decisions. That is, if the market does not offer you a choice that you like, you may choose "none of the above". With government decisions you have to take the choice that the government gives you, "none of the above" is not one of your choices.
Government decisions are imposed on people. Market decisions are the result of choices people have made. Don't like the decision the market has made concerning a product, don't buy it. Don't like the decision the government has made concerning a product, too bad, you have to pay for it anyway.
Actually it is worse than that because of what Moneyball did not show. The movie Moneyball completely ignored the role played in the success of the team it followed by players who were stars by traditional baseball standards. In addition, the team in Moneyball was not all that successful, it never won a championship using the Moneyball techniques. I suspect that this new analysis will be somewhat similar. It will add a few new wrinkles to the process that teams use to evaluate talent and choose players. In addition, the way the NBA is currently structured, non-basketball factors have a much bigger impact on the success of a team than statistical analysis does.
Being small airports, they also cost substantially more to fly into and out of...
That is not necessarily the case. In the area I live, there are several smaller airports just a shade closer to the main metropolitan airport than those we spoke of. A few years ago, the airlines were upset because people were booking flights out of these smaller airports which met a connecting flight at the large airport and on the return trip they were not catching the connecting flight back to the smaller airport. Why were they booking flights out of the smaller airports? Because they were cheaper, even though they switched planes at the major airport to get on the flight they would have been on if they had flown out of the major airport.
Next is the fact that people don't really pick their airports,...
Except that people do pick their airports, at least as far as the originating one for their trip (that is the one at the end of the trip closest to their home). Where I live people frequently drive to an airport in another metropolitan airport to save money or to save the hassle of having to change planes, or for several other reasons. As a matter of fact a few years ago, the airlines were complaining about people who bought tickets out of another metropolitan airport, then on the return flight they got off the plane at the airport closest to me and went home without catching the connecting flight to the airport they originally flew out of.
In short if the fastest and cheapest security that satisfies the loudest and most influential voices happens to be invasive...
Well, yes that is true. The heart of our disagreement is that I am quite confident that the fastest and cheapest security that would satisfy the loudest and most influential voices will not be as invasive as the current system.
It really does not matter whether you would wish to fly out of those airports. They exist and they compete with the "one airport" you claim has no competition. The fact that they are doing a poor job, in your estimation, of competing does not mean that they do not do so. I know people in my area who choose to drive that extra distance to get a better price on a flight. I even know of people who travel an extra two hours to catch a flight that saves them money, even though that flight connects through the major metropolitan airport that is closer to them. There was a big fuss about it a few years ago because the airlines were trying to figure out how to stop people from doing it.
I have reviewed this thread and several other threads and I do not see anybody saying to go to a system like what was in place in the 50s. I see several people making your argument who are arguing that is what people are calling for and I see several people arguing that that would be no worse than what we have now. But I do not see anybody arguing for no security whatsoever. I may have missed them, but you are clearly exaggerating when you say that people are arguing for no security whatsoever.
I am not in favor of self-regulation. I am in favor of regulation by the market. In the case of airlines, how exactly are NDAs going to keep an airlplane hijacking out of the news?
Well, at least you would know that it was because the overwhelming majority of your fellow travelers enjoy getting groped, rather than today where the majority of air travelers complain about it and wish they had a choice.
According to this site there are six airports within a two hour drive of Phoenix. The fact that you do not consider a two hour drive close enough to be a viable alternative says a lot about you. I live in a metropolitan area of over 5 million people and it normally takes 1 1/2 hours to get to the closest major airport. People routinely travel 2 hours to an airport in another major metropolitan area to save a few bucks on airfare.
And what are you going to do when some wacko takes a gun through airport A which has no security at all, or the security is totally lax, and shoots a bunch of people on the plane?
And what makes you think that such a thing would happen? It didn't happen before 9/11, when airport security was run the way that Rand Paul is recommending that we run it now. The "people" weren't screaming for airport security to be done by the government in the wake of 9/11. That was politicians you heard screaming for it. The fact of the matter is that if we had the exact same security set up we had on 9/11 today and someone tried to duplicate 9/11 they would fail.
I just looked up all of the metro areas in the U.S. with over 4 million people. The most isolated of them is Phoenix, AZ. There are six airports within 2 hours drive of Phoenix. All of the other metro areas with over 4 million people either have more than one airport, or are within two hours drive of other metropolitan areas with airports. The only metropolitan area in the U.S. with over 3 million people that might only have one airport within two hours drive is Minneapolis.
If you have to have a government service, and there's no way to make it competitive,...
And right there is your problem, you think that airport security is something that has to be a government service. Why can't it be the problem of the airlines or the airports? If airport security becomes the business of the airports and/or the airlines there will be plenty of competition. There are two airports equidistant from me and at least three more within a reasonable distance to catch a flight for any place far enough away to be worth flying to. That means there is plenty of competition.
Why should it be the government's problem to protect the security of the airlines' customers? Don't you think that the airlines have an interest in protecting the safety of their customers? Why should I pay for the safety of airline passengers through my taxes?
This privatization of the TSA will only serve to hand tax dollars to private companies with zero return.
Why would the private companies that take over airport screening receive tax dollars? Shouldn't ensuring the safety of their customers be the responsibility of the airlines?
More importantly, the odds are pretty good that if they stick someone who is uninsured with a bill that is so large they cannot possibly pay it, they will likely not even bother. When you combine this with the fact that most people without insurance for this sort of thing are earning less than those who have insurance, you quickly see why medical professionals charge less to the uninsured. That combined with the fact that most people who enter a medical profession have some level of wishing to help their fellow man.
But if you could get somebody with deep enough pockets to have the molds and ASICs made for the device and then marketed it cheaply enough for individuals to afford on their own ($50-$100) I'm confident you'd have no trouble recouping the cost and making a hefty profit.
Except for the fact that still would be class I regulated medical devices, subject to quite extensive government regulation (and a new medical devices tax under Obamacare, if the Supreme Court does not overturn it)
Why would they bother with the ballistics tests when they have these oh so much more reliable microstamps on the shell cases? Especially when doing the ballistics might result in evidence that would make it harder to get a conviction (by conflicting with the evidence from the microstamps). And, oh yeah, what if the police are unable to retrieve the gun? (as in it was lost on the way from the suspects house to the station).
Slashdot Mirror
I thought we were discussing the best way to make a decision, not how to get people what they want. I prefer a system where people interact by choice (free market), you prefer a system where people are coerced to interact (government). When the government makes the decision, you pay for it whether you like it or not. When the market makes the decision, you are free to keep your money if you do not like the choices the market gives you. You have repeatedly stated that you wish airline security to be done the way it is and apparently you like paying for it. I do not like the current system, so I don't fly, but because the government made the decision I have to pay for the system anyway.
They paid the tab before 9/11.
You would prefer to be subject to the decision made by a faceless bureaucrat who has no particular knowledge of the needs and desires of those effected by his decisions. I would prefer to be subject to the decision made by people who lose money if too many of the paying customers decide to opt out of the market because they do not like the decision made.
The difference between market decisions and government decisions is that you can choose to not partake in market decisions. That is, if the market does not offer you a choice that you like, you may choose "none of the above". With government decisions you have to take the choice that the government gives you, "none of the above" is not one of your choices.
Government decisions are imposed on people. Market decisions are the result of choices people have made. Don't like the decision the market has made concerning a product, don't buy it. Don't like the decision the government has made concerning a product, too bad, you have to pay for it anyway.
Actually it is worse than that because of what Moneyball did not show. The movie Moneyball completely ignored the role played in the success of the team it followed by players who were stars by traditional baseball standards. In addition, the team in Moneyball was not all that successful, it never won a championship using the Moneyball techniques. I suspect that this new analysis will be somewhat similar. It will add a few new wrinkles to the process that teams use to evaluate talent and choose players. In addition, the way the NBA is currently structured, non-basketball factors have a much bigger impact on the success of a team than statistical analysis does.
Being small airports, they also cost substantially more to fly into and out of...
That is not necessarily the case. In the area I live, there are several smaller airports just a shade closer to the main metropolitan airport than those we spoke of. A few years ago, the airlines were upset because people were booking flights out of these smaller airports which met a connecting flight at the large airport and on the return trip they were not catching the connecting flight back to the smaller airport. Why were they booking flights out of the smaller airports? Because they were cheaper, even though they switched planes at the major airport to get on the flight they would have been on if they had flown out of the major airport.
Next is the fact that people don't really pick their airports,...
Except that people do pick their airports, at least as far as the originating one for their trip (that is the one at the end of the trip closest to their home). Where I live people frequently drive to an airport in another metropolitan airport to save money or to save the hassle of having to change planes, or for several other reasons. As a matter of fact a few years ago, the airlines were complaining about people who bought tickets out of another metropolitan airport, then on the return flight they got off the plane at the airport closest to me and went home without catching the connecting flight to the airport they originally flew out of.
In short if the fastest and cheapest security that satisfies the loudest and most influential voices happens to be invasive...
Well, yes that is true. The heart of our disagreement is that I am quite confident that the fastest and cheapest security that would satisfy the loudest and most influential voices will not be as invasive as the current system.
I am confused how you imagine an unpleasant process that takes more time and money to execute would win out in the market if people did not enjoy it.
It really does not matter whether you would wish to fly out of those airports. They exist and they compete with the "one airport" you claim has no competition. The fact that they are doing a poor job, in your estimation, of competing does not mean that they do not do so. I know people in my area who choose to drive that extra distance to get a better price on a flight. I even know of people who travel an extra two hours to catch a flight that saves them money, even though that flight connects through the major metropolitan airport that is closer to them. There was a big fuss about it a few years ago because the airlines were trying to figure out how to stop people from doing it.
I have reviewed this thread and several other threads and I do not see anybody saying to go to a system like what was in place in the 50s. I see several people making your argument who are arguing that is what people are calling for and I see several people arguing that that would be no worse than what we have now. But I do not see anybody arguing for no security whatsoever. I may have missed them, but you are clearly exaggerating when you say that people are arguing for no security whatsoever.
I am not in favor of self-regulation. I am in favor of regulation by the market. In the case of airlines, how exactly are NDAs going to keep an airlplane hijacking out of the news?
Well, at least you would know that it was because the overwhelming majority of your fellow travelers enjoy getting groped, rather than today where the majority of air travelers complain about it and wish they had a choice.
According to this site there are six airports within a two hour drive of Phoenix. The fact that you do not consider a two hour drive close enough to be a viable alternative says a lot about you. I live in a metropolitan area of over 5 million people and it normally takes 1 1/2 hours to get to the closest major airport. People routinely travel 2 hours to an airport in another major metropolitan area to save a few bucks on airfare.
And what are you going to do when some wacko takes a gun through airport A which has no security at all, or the security is totally lax, and shoots a bunch of people on the plane?
And what makes you think that such a thing would happen? It didn't happen before 9/11, when airport security was run the way that Rand Paul is recommending that we run it now. The "people" weren't screaming for airport security to be done by the government in the wake of 9/11. That was politicians you heard screaming for it. The fact of the matter is that if we had the exact same security set up we had on 9/11 today and someone tried to duplicate 9/11 they would fail.
If you get groped by private screeners, the next time you fly you can take your business somewhere else.
I just looked up all of the metro areas in the U.S. with over 4 million people. The most isolated of them is Phoenix, AZ. There are six airports within 2 hours drive of Phoenix. All of the other metro areas with over 4 million people either have more than one airport, or are within two hours drive of other metropolitan areas with airports. The only metropolitan area in the U.S. with over 3 million people that might only have one airport within two hours drive is Minneapolis.
If you have to have a government service, and there's no way to make it competitive,...
And right there is your problem, you think that airport security is something that has to be a government service. Why can't it be the problem of the airlines or the airports? If airport security becomes the business of the airports and/or the airlines there will be plenty of competition. There are two airports equidistant from me and at least three more within a reasonable distance to catch a flight for any place far enough away to be worth flying to. That means there is plenty of competition.
Why should it be the government's problem to protect the security of the airlines' customers? Don't you think that the airlines have an interest in protecting the safety of their customers? Why should I pay for the safety of airline passengers through my taxes?
Rand Paul was elected to the Senate in 2010. That means that he is not up for re-election until 2016. This is not an election year for Rand Paul.
...with random stops-and-searches along interstates (border states),...
Since when is Tennessee a border state?
This privatization of the TSA will only serve to hand tax dollars to private companies with zero return.
Why would the private companies that take over airport screening receive tax dollars? Shouldn't ensuring the safety of their customers be the responsibility of the airlines?
More importantly, the odds are pretty good that if they stick someone who is uninsured with a bill that is so large they cannot possibly pay it, they will likely not even bother. When you combine this with the fact that most people without insurance for this sort of thing are earning less than those who have insurance, you quickly see why medical professionals charge less to the uninsured. That combined with the fact that most people who enter a medical profession have some level of wishing to help their fellow man.
But if you could get somebody with deep enough pockets to have the molds and ASICs made for the device and then marketed it cheaply enough for individuals to afford on their own ($50-$100) I'm confident you'd have no trouble recouping the cost and making a hefty profit.
Except for the fact that still would be class I regulated medical devices, subject to quite extensive government regulation (and a new medical devices tax under Obamacare, if the Supreme Court does not overturn it)
Why would they bother with the ballistics tests when they have these oh so much more reliable microstamps on the shell cases? Especially when doing the ballistics might result in evidence that would make it harder to get a conviction (by conflicting with the evidence from the microstamps). And, oh yeah, what if the police are unable to retrieve the gun? (as in it was lost on the way from the suspects house to the station).