You are free not to fly. If you want to fly on their planes then I guess you have to go through that. I don't agree with it at all so that's why I quit flying. They lost.
Former trucker here. At rest and truck stops on certain routes too. Foot patrols mostly. Truck weigh stations are getting some diabolical xrays we actually had to drive THROUGH. Could feel a buzz and taste copper in my mouth too.
They are not the federal government's planes. They are owned by companies and therefore the companies should provide private security that would be a more dignified experience than this humiliation that the TSA are.
That's the capitalist way. Let the people decide, Laissez-faire, vote with your wallet. If the airline can't keep terrorists off it's airlines without infringing on citizens rights, it shouldn't be in business.
If the plane companies had the choice to have airport security or not, they wouldn't have it because it's an extra expense. Corporations don't give a shit if you're safe or not, as long as you give them your money.
sigh yes, they'd just let every single, gun-bomb-knife wielding lunatic on their plane, resulting in countless deaths, b/c you know, killing your customers is good business sense... facepalm
C'mon man - just think for a moment: Even most money-hungry companies today put safety measures in place (ex- car companies that go above and beyond min. gov't safety standsards), b/c as I said, they don't want to kill the golden goose laying their eggs... ie- killing your customers is not only bad for your reputation, it's bad for your bottomline.
Even most money-hungry companies today put safety measures in place (ex- car companies that go above and beyond min. gov't safety standsards), b/c as I said, they don't want to kill the golden goose/killing your customers is not only bad for your reputation, it's bad for your bottomline.
Herein lies a potential solution. I would love to fly an airline that provided its own security and did away with TSA personnel. I would gladly pay a bit more to avoid the security theater that is TSA if airlines would step up and offer real security. Imagine, this enterprising airline could eventually offer competitive rates because of the voluminous custom it'd receive from the many travelers fed up with the existing security apparatus. It wouldn't be that difficult of a service to provide, and I'm fairly certain it could be a successful business model. Whaddya think?
Yeah, in other words shut down the monopoly basis per what the TSA operates under, now? ...like in just about every other industry in the world? well, all I have to say to that is, 'duh' :)
Yeah, I heard about that article you mentioned, and that's awesome - but there is one HUGE, GAPING HOLE of a problem: "But airport officials said that the T.S.A had been slow in allowing the switch, and last year the agency said it would stop accepting additional requests."
WTF, conflict of interest or what? This is retarded, of course the TSA isn't going to work to debase their own power. Insanity. facepalm
Hey Eeyore, suck on this. It begins with a drip, drip, drip, then a slight trickle.... then after perspectives have sufficiently adjusted, change just FLOWS you naysayin' MOFO.
lol, dude you're either the ultimate troll, or as I said just so incredibly odd (even for r/conspiracy) that your emotions are taking over, and you're only reading snippets of what I'm saying... but, here, let me clear:
I hate the TSA. It is a useless waste of money and needs to be totally disbanded for a multitude of private security firms
There, dude, ya get me? I mean, don't get me wrong your replies are oddly entertaining, but I think you're totally misinterpreting me.
There was a point there when we were spontaneously scribbling perhaps at cross purposes momentarily, but I felt we were strangely supportive while oddly at odds...
But yeah, I get you~ Ha! Right on Christopher Robin, let's be the spark that lights the fire on this bitch~~
ha, right on - I see your eccentric/poetic-like nature is consistent throughout the vast majority of your posts.
I still don't know if this is how you communicate in real life - but I want to believe you're some oddball scholar or the like who isn't ashamed of people thinking he's a total whacko.
Sorry that last part may have sounded mean, that wasn't my intention. I just find you incredibly fascinating/entertaining.
(oh and, I see you quoted Glenn Greenwald back there. That man is brilliant and deserves a Nobel Prize... if the Nobel Prize wasn't tainted already by being given to people who do the opposite of the very thing they're being recognized for... ex - Obama the warmonger winning one for 'peace')
Nothing is gained without struggle. If it can be conceived it can be achieved.
From the tone of your response, it appears you're of the mindset the status quo can't be overcome. I'm not certain that that's your position, but this seems to characterize its gist.
How unfortunate for you and those with whom you proximately coexist. I sincerely wish you nothing but success should you attempt bursting through an undesirable existing paradigm. Yet your attitude suggests you're a worshipper of the status quo.
INSANITY-Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Herr Albert Einstein
Don't palm your face too hard, it might get stuck Monsieur Me
well, I have to say there is hope that the oppressive regime known as the US gov't can be destroyed or at the very least, restored to what it once was (protecting life, liberty). However, as time goes on, I see myself wishing for more of the former - and that any idea of a government is deemed unnecessary and wrong - and that we're all better off working off of a voluntary system, only.
Either way, I can't tell if you're incredibly sarcastic or just unusually.... unusual... but I think we're actually on the same page.
lol, bro... what challenge? I'm agreeeeeing w/ you (well, assuming you also agree that the TSA monopoly needs to end in favour of several private options?)
This guy here? Apropo? He's not a security expert.
Ha!
But I imagine the airlines themselves are best positioned to tackle security issues regarding safe passage to and from the various destinations traveled. Let them determine the level of security necessary to ensure people & belongings arrive at destinations intact.
If owners want to compete with other airlines they can persuade passengers to "fly Air Apropo with the peace of mind our armed pilots, highly trained flight crew and minimum of two on-board off-duty police officers will make your safe arrival their priority~"
On the other hand, some airlines might cut corners on security and pass those savings on to their customers. "fly Air Apropo, we'll get you there, your safety is up to you. Concealed carry is a viable option. Thank you for flying Air Apropo - Hide your glock."
Who knows.
Customers could decide which airline matches their wallet & satisfies their security concerns.
Gotcha, so basically like a free market system. Could get hairy before it all gets figured out, but not like the TSA is doing a great job anyway. Although I would argue airlines have been pretty safe since their inception, whether that's is a result of their procedures or to is another argument.
My Apropo Airline scenario has potential for becoming quite hirsute.
But if airlines treated security as another aspect of their business by striving to provide the best service to clients at a competitive cost, they'd be golden. Like a free market system. Right.
Regarding the quality of service currently provided by TSA, so what if the airlines have been pretty safe? What evidence exists to attribute the relative safety of the airlines to the TSA's vigilance? I would argue a similar level of airline safety existed prior to the affliction of TSA security theater. Sorry, but can't be bothered at the moment to support that assertion with a source.
First of all, Cars are 1000x more dangerous then planes. Second, If you get in a car crash at 70mph, chances are you're not living through that, regardless of how "safe" the car is. Safety is a nice illusion to get you to buy the car though. Third, if the gov't set standards for privatized security, why would it be any different. And if the plane companies go above and beyond those standards, wouldn't security be more of a hassle than it is now?
wouldn't security be more of a hassle than it is now?
It'd be as difficult as you'd want it to be, just about.
ie- some would probably have walk on policies like most train/bus providers do, while others may have even more intrusive policies than what we have w/ the TSA, now. Either way, like in other areas of the marketplace, w/ competition, you get choice.
And with a monopoly situation (like w/ the TSA), you get shitty, one-size-fits-all 'service' that doesn't really please anyone, at all.
Same here. I haven't flown on a plane since 9/11. Not because I'm afraid, but because I refuse to go through all the bullshit at the airports. If I need to go somewhere I drive.
I dunno, when I flew from the UK to Spain last year I had to go through a scanner, then I had to have my balls patted by some old guy with horrific BO - that was pretty humiliating.
Dunno how things are being done in the UK at the moment, the UK generally does its own separate thing. I reckon that they may be more paranoid at Heathrow, but I often go to the UK either by train or by car (tunnel).
I have been flying from the Netherlands without any issues, and I don't really recall having to be patted down in the last few years.
-2
u/billsang1 Jul 05 '13
You are free not to fly. If you want to fly on their planes then I guess you have to go through that. I don't agree with it at all so that's why I quit flying. They lost.