hwt 0 #1 July 8, 2011 They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin http://video.foxnews.com/v/1044166865001/ron-pauls-push-to-privatize-airport-security/ I like Ron Paul and i share his view . get the government out ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 July 8, 2011 QuoteThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin http://video.foxnews.com/v/1044166865001/ron-pauls-push-to-privatize-airport-security/ I like Ron Paul and i share his view . get the government out ! Who was doing airport security on September 11th 2001 again??? The way the government has enacted this new system is pretty much a cluster fuck.. since for the most part all they did was hire the same mediocre morons who were doing it before. If they want to do it right.. turn it over to the Israeli's and let them run it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 July 8, 2011 Quotehttp://video.foxnews.com/v/1044166865001/ron-pauls-push-to-privatize-airport-security/ I like Ron Paul and i share his view . get the government out ! Unfortunately, you're NEVER going to get the airlines to pay for it themselves like they used to. It was all a ploy to shift the expense to all the tax payers rather than actual users.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #4 July 8, 2011 Uh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 July 8, 2011 QuoteUh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? But why on Earth would they then they can shove the costs off to the tax payers at large?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #6 July 8, 2011 >But why on Earth would they then they can shove the costs off to the tax payers at large? Have a few more assault charges filed against TSA employees and you might start seeing some good reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 July 8, 2011 Quote>But why on Earth would they then they can shove the costs off to the tax payers at large? Have a few more assault charges filed against TSA employees and you might start seeing some good reasons. And why would airlines what that burden? The TSA is a win-win for airlines. All that bad customer service gets blamed on "big government" AND they don't have to pay for it. Also, in the nearly 10 years the TSA has been operating, the airlines have gotten used to not having to pay for security in their budgets. If asked to pay now, they'd all whine to high heaven, lobby against it, they'd claim it would close smaller airlines and smaller airports putting people out of work. It's a HUGE government subsidy to the airline industry based on the Orwellian idea that "War is Peace" and as long as we're at "war" with Oceania we absolutely need it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #8 July 8, 2011 >And why would airlines what that burden? "I'm not flying out of Midway any more, the TSA agents are out of control there. I'm going to O'Hare." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 July 8, 2011 Quote>And why would airlines what that burden? "I'm not flying out of Midway any more, the TSA agents are out of control there. I'm going to O'Hare." But this assumes that O'Hare would already have private security in place. Why would they do that if they didn't have to? I don't see it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #10 July 8, 2011 >But this assumes that O'Hare would already have private security in place. Right. At that point O'Hare (or more to the point United) would have a competitive advantage over, say, Midway (and Frontier.) But to use an example you might prefer: "I'm not flying out of San Jose any more, the TSA agents are out of control there. I'm going to SFO." (SFO currently has private security.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #11 July 9, 2011 QuoteUh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? Uh, you realize that the TSA still gets to set the security standards for the private security company, right?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,416 #12 July 9, 2011 >Uh, you realize that the TSA still gets to set the security standards for the private >security company, right? Yep. Similar to how airlines are privatized but the FAA sets standards for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy 0 #13 July 9, 2011 If some enterprising entrepreneur magically had the power under the law and opened up a take your chances airline with no security I would totally be all for it. I've had ~3000 dollars worth of electronics stolen from the TSA, been felt up, and honestly I'm pretty sure if I could carry my glock like any other place I find myself in Georgia I would be a hell of a lot safer than any service those morons could providePeace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #14 July 9, 2011 They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Quote I would honestly like to try and understand the "liberties" that people feel they are giving up by flying. The only thing I can see infringed upon is your freedom of speech by not being able to jokingly say you have a bomb in your carry on, in which case I agree with having that right temporarily dialed back a bit. Flying on a commercial airplane isn't a right. Nowhere is anyone guaranteed the right to air transportation. When you book a flight you implicitly agree to comply with the federal regulations regarding air travel, much the same way that your entry onto a government installation implies consent to search. If you don't like having your liberties infringed upon, as you claim you are then you don't have to travel by commercial plane, its a simple concept. I will agree though that most TSA agents are incompetent. Most of them are uneducated, and have no other job skills to offer the world. You give an idiot a badge, minimal training, and tell them they are important and they are going to act stupid. Half of the people I encounter in airports seem barely employable. Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hwt 0 #15 July 9, 2011 Quote Quote They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin http://video.foxnews.com/v/1044166865001/ron-pauls-push-to-privatize-airport-security/ I like Ron Paul and i share his view . get the government out ! Who was doing airport security on September 11th 2001 again??? The way the government has enacted this new system is pretty much a cluster fuck.. since for the most part all they did was hire the same mediocre morons who were doing it before. If they want to do it right.. turn it over to the Israeli's and let them run it. _________________________________________ Everyone here should know how i feel about that socialist, Bush... I hate homeland security.... just another big government program . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #16 July 9, 2011 Quote Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing. Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State. Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hwt 0 #17 July 9, 2011 Quote Uh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? _______________________________________ Ron wants to put security in the hands of the airline, not the airport and that is the whole point with the free market that America has... I could always go fly another airline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #18 July 9, 2011 Quote Quote Uh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? _______________________________________ Ron wants to put security in the hands of the airline, not the airport and that is the whole point with the free market that America has... I could always go fly another airline. So each airline you flew would have its own security? If you switched airlines on a layover would you have to go through different security? That doesn't make sense. It's simple: The airport provides the security (private or TSA) as part of its services and just include that in what they charge the air carrier per gate, fuel, takeoff and landing, etc. The air carrier then adjusts prices accordingly. No more TSA fee per ticket. The eventual goal would be to privatize TSA and/or make them at least self sufficient.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ECVZZ 0 #19 July 9, 2011 Quote Quote Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing. Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State. Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveller. Well said Douglas! Spot on, so to speak. I wonder If GQ jumper would be okay with the TSA treating jump operations the same way they do commercial flights; including the intrusive manual body searches? Wasn't that long ago that they wanted to, and would've, but for opposition from organizations like USPA and AOPA. Would the inconvenience of only being able to get in 2 or 3 jumps per day due to TSA delays be too much of an "infringement" for you? After all, I don't believe skydiving is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Maybe they could install a nice cavity search booth near the boarding area to speed things up. That way you wouldn't have to pay $100 each for jump tickets to subsidize a backscatter machine. I'm with Paul (Quade) on this one. ETA Clarification. G. Jones "I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #20 July 10, 2011 QuoteQuote Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing. Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State. Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveller. No. It's still not a big issue. You do not have to fly. There's no loss of liberty here._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #21 July 10, 2011 Quote No. It's still not a big issue. You do not have to fly. There's no loss of liberty here. 85% of US travel is business-based. Suggesting business people choose other means of transportation in a global economy is ridiculous and indeed, a loss of liberty. Had the TSA gotten their initiative through to demand checks of skydivers-per-load, would you find yourself still saying "You don't have to fly?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #22 July 10, 2011 Quote85% of US travel is business-based. Suggesting business people choose other means of transportation in a global economy is ridiculous and indeed, a loss of liberty. The people who got to this position to "have to travel" for their business, got here by personal choices they have made in their lives. They do not have to be in this arena. There will always be someone willing to go through these searches for the jobs of their choice. QuoteHad the TSA gotten their initiative through to demand checks of skydivers-per-load, would you find yourself still saying "You don't have to fly?" Yes. You are not being told that you can't skydive. I'd fight this, but it would be because I am annoyed by the extra costs and number of rides to altitude rather than some "liberty" claim. There's other options. The Ben Franklin quote in this thread was said approximately before feb 1775. It wasn't some typical quote in the "Poor Richard's Almanac", it was in the remarks of some proposition to Massachusettes who must "suffer all hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by the Parliament." This was about going to war over rules the Founding Fathers did not like. This TSA crap isn't an argument about Liberty. It's hyperbole. It's annoyance that is going over the top. You do not have a right to fly on an airline._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #23 July 10, 2011 "loss of liberty" does not necessarily equal a "right." You're correct; flying is a privilege, sure...and in a fantasy world it's an unnecessary privilege. Just as driving, taking the train, riding a bike, taking a cab, walking to work is an unnecessary privilege. Imagine walking into downtown anywhere USA and being strip searched before entering the "downtown zone." The only difference is in degree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #24 July 10, 2011 QuoteImagine walking into downtown anywhere USA and being strip searched before entering the "downtown zone." The only difference is in degree. Sorta like going through a metal detector or having bags searched before being allowed to enter: * a sporting event or concert at a venue? * a federal or state building such as a courthouse? * a high security corporate building? I completely agree that the TSA checks are ridiculous, but not because they don't have the rights but how pointless most of them are. To me this is a much more effective and relevant argument and should be the focus. My biggest issue with the backscatter machines is they're far slower than the traditional scanners.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #25 July 10, 2011 Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." Quote You take a very small number of isolated incidents caused by a few bad apples to paint the entire system in a negative light. I have travelled on commercial flights hundreds of times since 9-11 and have never once had an issue apart from having to spend a few extra minutes at the security screening explaining something to an agent or getting an extra pat-down. These include times when the chemical swabs have tested positive for all kinds of goodies that go boom due to the fact that nearly every piece of baggage I own, and all my hiking boots have been in contact with explosives for work. Have you yourself had a major incident that was not either A) blown grossly out of proportion or B) largely your own fault? I say again that people need to climb down off their high horse and contribute to something that while mildly inconvenient, and far from perfect is in its most basic form intended to help us. Its not the perfect solution but its better than nothing.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
hwt 0 #15 July 9, 2011 Quote Quote They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin http://video.foxnews.com/v/1044166865001/ron-pauls-push-to-privatize-airport-security/ I like Ron Paul and i share his view . get the government out ! Who was doing airport security on September 11th 2001 again??? The way the government has enacted this new system is pretty much a cluster fuck.. since for the most part all they did was hire the same mediocre morons who were doing it before. If they want to do it right.. turn it over to the Israeli's and let them run it. _________________________________________ Everyone here should know how i feel about that socialist, Bush... I hate homeland security.... just another big government program . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #16 July 9, 2011 Quote Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing. Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State. Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #17 July 9, 2011 Quote Uh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? _______________________________________ Ron wants to put security in the hands of the airline, not the airport and that is the whole point with the free market that America has... I could always go fly another airline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #18 July 9, 2011 Quote Quote Uh, you realize that airports can do that now if they choose to, right? _______________________________________ Ron wants to put security in the hands of the airline, not the airport and that is the whole point with the free market that America has... I could always go fly another airline. So each airline you flew would have its own security? If you switched airlines on a layover would you have to go through different security? That doesn't make sense. It's simple: The airport provides the security (private or TSA) as part of its services and just include that in what they charge the air carrier per gate, fuel, takeoff and landing, etc. The air carrier then adjusts prices accordingly. No more TSA fee per ticket. The eventual goal would be to privatize TSA and/or make them at least self sufficient.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ECVZZ 0 #19 July 9, 2011 Quote Quote Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing. Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State. Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveller. Well said Douglas! Spot on, so to speak. I wonder If GQ jumper would be okay with the TSA treating jump operations the same way they do commercial flights; including the intrusive manual body searches? Wasn't that long ago that they wanted to, and would've, but for opposition from organizations like USPA and AOPA. Would the inconvenience of only being able to get in 2 or 3 jumps per day due to TSA delays be too much of an "infringement" for you? After all, I don't believe skydiving is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Maybe they could install a nice cavity search booth near the boarding area to speed things up. That way you wouldn't have to pay $100 each for jump tickets to subsidize a backscatter machine. I'm with Paul (Quade) on this one. ETA Clarification. G. Jones "I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #20 July 10, 2011 QuoteQuote Either way, if the law requires me to take my flip flops off and let someone run the back of their hand through my crotch then so be it. Not all of us are so full of ourselves that we feel the need to make a huge issue out of nothing. Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." This country was founded on the concept of liberty and while your definition and my definition of "liberty" might be different; I'm pretty confident the Founding Fathers never considered the groping of testicles and breasts as being a liberty of the State. Privatizing airports may well help restore at least *some* dignity, but I honestly think we're too far into the government-funded rabbit hole to back out. Government wins, airport wins, the only loser is the traveller. No. It's still not a big issue. You do not have to fly. There's no loss of liberty here._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #21 July 10, 2011 Quote No. It's still not a big issue. You do not have to fly. There's no loss of liberty here. 85% of US travel is business-based. Suggesting business people choose other means of transportation in a global economy is ridiculous and indeed, a loss of liberty. Had the TSA gotten their initiative through to demand checks of skydivers-per-load, would you find yourself still saying "You don't have to fly?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #22 July 10, 2011 Quote85% of US travel is business-based. Suggesting business people choose other means of transportation in a global economy is ridiculous and indeed, a loss of liberty. The people who got to this position to "have to travel" for their business, got here by personal choices they have made in their lives. They do not have to be in this arena. There will always be someone willing to go through these searches for the jobs of their choice. QuoteHad the TSA gotten their initiative through to demand checks of skydivers-per-load, would you find yourself still saying "You don't have to fly?" Yes. You are not being told that you can't skydive. I'd fight this, but it would be because I am annoyed by the extra costs and number of rides to altitude rather than some "liberty" claim. There's other options. The Ben Franklin quote in this thread was said approximately before feb 1775. It wasn't some typical quote in the "Poor Richard's Almanac", it was in the remarks of some proposition to Massachusettes who must "suffer all hazards and mischiefs of war, rather than admit the alteration of their charters and laws by the Parliament." This was about going to war over rules the Founding Fathers did not like. This TSA crap isn't an argument about Liberty. It's hyperbole. It's annoyance that is going over the top. You do not have a right to fly on an airline._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #23 July 10, 2011 "loss of liberty" does not necessarily equal a "right." You're correct; flying is a privilege, sure...and in a fantasy world it's an unnecessary privilege. Just as driving, taking the train, riding a bike, taking a cab, walking to work is an unnecessary privilege. Imagine walking into downtown anywhere USA and being strip searched before entering the "downtown zone." The only difference is in degree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #24 July 10, 2011 QuoteImagine walking into downtown anywhere USA and being strip searched before entering the "downtown zone." The only difference is in degree. Sorta like going through a metal detector or having bags searched before being allowed to enter: * a sporting event or concert at a venue? * a federal or state building such as a courthouse? * a high security corporate building? I completely agree that the TSA checks are ridiculous, but not because they don't have the rights but how pointless most of them are. To me this is a much more effective and relevant argument and should be the focus. My biggest issue with the backscatter machines is they're far slower than the traditional scanners.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #25 July 10, 2011 Photos/scans of private citizens found all over the internet, near-fatal beatings of some who have teased others over their small 'members', belongings stolen by government agents, loss of dignity for any number of persons by having their diapers (young and old) examined and sexual parts groped is hardly "nothing." Quote You take a very small number of isolated incidents caused by a few bad apples to paint the entire system in a negative light. I have travelled on commercial flights hundreds of times since 9-11 and have never once had an issue apart from having to spend a few extra minutes at the security screening explaining something to an agent or getting an extra pat-down. These include times when the chemical swabs have tested positive for all kinds of goodies that go boom due to the fact that nearly every piece of baggage I own, and all my hiking boots have been in contact with explosives for work. Have you yourself had a major incident that was not either A) blown grossly out of proportion or B) largely your own fault? I say again that people need to climb down off their high horse and contribute to something that while mildly inconvenient, and far from perfect is in its most basic form intended to help us. Its not the perfect solution but its better than nothing.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
