Wait Just One Minute
When the local government in Fountain Hills, Arizona, reviewed a bunch of bids and awarded a garbage contract to one company for 25,000 residences in a county of over 4 million, and I was ok with it and laughed at the insane teabagger response, multiple libertarians sneered at me and screamed “LIBERALS FAVOR STATE-SANCTIONED MONOPOLIES” and other such idiocy. Never mind that it was not a monopoly in any way, shape, or form, and was so god damned stupid it didn’t warrant a serious response.
Now libertarians want to turn over airline security to private industry. Fine. Just how would this work? Would we have competitive bids and then award a contract creating a “STATE-SANCTIONED SECURITY MONOPOLY,” or would multiple security firms each get to line up in the airport hangars, and the consumer would get to choose which private firm gets to handle his privates? Who would license the security firms? Would we keep the TSA to inspect the new private security firms? Or would we have to create a new agency to inspect them?
These fantasy ideologies with ever-shifting rationales and rigid attachment to principles over reality are so hard to game out when you actually want to get shit done.
November 29, 2010 12:19 pm
Posted in: Domestic Affairs
51 Comments
51 Responses
Mr Furious - November 29, 2010 | 12:23 pm · Link
Nonsense! The security firms that let all the terrorists on board resulting in mass casualties will quickly go out of business.
The genius of the free market, etc.
Corner Stone - November 29, 2010 | 12:25 pm · Link
I’ve run out of hand lotion. I’ll be back in a jiff.
Don’t start without me!!
jayackroyd - November 29, 2010 | 12:25 pm · Link
In a free market, security firms would arise who would offer clearance services, (just like UL!) certifying passengers as safe to fly. Firms that certified bombers as safe to fly would rapidly go out of business, as airlines would refuse recognize their certifications as, so the market would soon create a competitive solution, just the pre FDA market for drugs, that resulted in the most efficient possible set of firms providing screening services.
If only the government would butt out, then this problem would solve itself!
Poopyman - November 29, 2010 | 12:26 pm · Link
Exactly! People with some actual experience in how govt contracting actually works realize this privatization fetish is pure wanking fantasy. Without a satisfying conclusion, I might add.
CJ - November 29, 2010 | 12:27 pm · Link
Remember, the free market can never fail. Only we can fail the free market.
Nimm - November 29, 2010 | 12:28 pm · Link
What a coincidence…there was an angry letter in the local paper today about our own local trash pickup:
The freedom to pick between the trash pickup that costs $18 per month, and the one that costs $17 per month, is more important than life itself.
david mizner - November 29, 2010 | 12:28 pm · Link
should turn it over to the Catholic Church, the gliberterians would be happy, as would the opponents of Church-State separation, and the priests…fulfill a lot of fantasies all at once.
azlib - November 29, 2010 | 12:29 pm · Link
I learned a long time ago from a “recovering” libertarian that the favorite sport on libertarian lists is to see who can out libertarian the other. The libertarian circular firing squad is a lot tighter than the liberal circular firing squad. Libertarian philosophy does not have to make sense, since it will never get implemented in the real world. It is mostly a big circle jerk among a bunch of really politically naive people.
Oh, and a lot of them live off one government supported program or another. The degree of hypocrisy in that crowd is astonishing.
p.a. - November 29, 2010 | 12:29 pm · Link
after enough successful terrorist attacks and/or concomitant innocent civilian ‘incidents’ by the various contractors, a large enough data set will exist (assuming public access to the data), for the (surviving) public to make informed decisions about which airports to use, and which to avoid. easy-peasy.
libertarianism rulz
(reposted from ‘Faith Based…’ thread)
Mudge - November 29, 2010 | 12:32 pm · Link
A critical problem of free markets in a case like this is defining the bid req
different church-lady - November 29, 2010 | 12:32 pm · Link
I offer the same solution as I did to the garbage crisis: everyone just feels their own damn self up before boarding their own damn aircraft.
Belafon (formerly anonevent) - November 29, 2010 | 12:32 pm · Link
I want to go through the Hustler Security Company line.
cleek - November 29, 2010 | 12:32 pm · Link
yes, i think each passenger would be able to select his own screening agency.
Dennis SGMM - November 29, 2010 | 12:33 pm · Link
@Mudge:
What is the critical problem of free markets in a case like this?
Citizen Alan - November 29, 2010 | 12:35 pm · Link
Careful, Cole. If you keep pointing out the abject stupidity of Kain’s last post, it might hurt his feelings to the point he threatens to quit again.
Mudge - November 29, 2010 | 12:35 pm · Link
That was strange..sorry..
What I meant to say was who defines bid requirements, who enforces them, is it a low bid contract, how often do you re-bid and must TSA train every time?
It would seem that the TSA duties would benefit by institutional experience and may be best performed by a government agency.
suzanne - November 29, 2010 | 12:35 pm · Link
My guilt at having once dated/banged a libertarian is once again coming to the fore.
Ugh. I could shower with bleach and steel wool, and still never feel clean.
Dave - November 29, 2010 | 12:36 pm · Link
The important thing is we’re having these discussions.
Corner Stone - November 29, 2010 | 12:38 pm · Link
@Nimm:
Sorry but I couldn’t get past the “the city strongly is” part.
Just hilariously bad.
suzanne - November 29, 2010 | 12:39 pm · Link
@Dennis SGMM: The fundamental problem is that their profit, their very reason for existing, is increased by endangering my life.
No amount of rahrah free market hand-wringing can get us around that elemental problem.
Ross Hershberger - November 29, 2010 | 12:41 pm · Link
And which screening company would get all of the terrorists’ business? Looks like an opportunity for a niche business.
Corner Stone - November 29, 2010 | 12:41 pm · Link
@azlib:
Speaking of which, I’m back with more lotion!
Maybe Radley Balko will post an angry retort to Cole’s post.
Carnacki - November 29, 2010 | 12:41 pm · Link
@Corner Stone: FTW
Brick Oven Bill - November 29, 2010 | 12:43 pm · Link
It would be much easier if we were simply to acknowledge that Islam is masculine religion, ban Muslims from airports and/or the country, abolish the TSA, and turn security over to the airlines.
The truth is that this government likes Muslims because that faith provides a perfect excuse to over-reach.
Fuck! A Duck - November 29, 2010 | 12:44 pm · Link
Um, John? I have the operator on the phone and she says they’ve traced the call and it’s coming from inside your
houseblog!Get out! Get out now!
Paris - November 29, 2010 | 12:45 pm · Link
Problem solved. I’m getting in the line with the hot chick patting people down. Cole is a genius.
debbie - November 29, 2010 | 12:45 pm · Link
I don’t see how private firms will be any better at this than government employees have been. Has there ever been an instance of a successful combination of safety and the profit motive? I can’t think of one.
The real answer is better education of government employees, and then paying them what they and their jobs are worth.
fasteddie9318 - November 29, 2010 | 12:48 pm · Link
@Mr Furious:
Exactly. It would work the same way in food inspection; as various private companies competed in the field, those that failed to stop outbreaks of food poisoning would simply go out of business as the consumer searched for the effective firms instead. The thousands of peasants who would die in the process would be martyrs for the glory of the free market. They would immediately enter Objectivist Heaven, where they would be privileged to service the needs of all the Galtian Titans who have sadly passed on for lack of peasant organs, blood, tissue, etc., with which to prolong their lives. What a glorious paradise this country could be if it only followed the common sense step of letting the peasant die so as to guinea pig the system for our societal overlords.
enplaned - November 29, 2010 | 12:48 pm · Link
There’s a structural problem with the TSA, which is that it regulates itself.
A better solution would be for the TSA to be a small elite agency tasked with constantly testing security at airports. Security itself would be up to the airports itself—however they wanted to do it, so long as they were able to keep the TSA from penetrating security. The TSA would constantly and covertly attempt to break thru, using whatever means it wants (terrorists don’t play fair, neither would the TSA).
Fuck! A Duck - November 29, 2010 | 12:49 pm · Link
Oh, fuck-a-duck, there’s already another TSA thread. You guys are collectively like a 15 yr old boy, unloading without warning and repeatedly.
fasteddie9318 - November 29, 2010 | 12:50 pm · Link
@Paris:
Remember, folks, look for the “Happy Endings Airport Security Checkpoint!” You may not survive the flight, but we guarantee you’ll die with a smile on your face!
J.W. Hamner - November 29, 2010 | 12:51 pm · Link
Well if we legalize prostitution at the same time, we could each arrange our own strip search with a happy ending before we get on the plane with no special training necessary!
J.W. Hamner - November 29, 2010 | 12:52 pm · Link
@fasteddie9318:
Curses!
suzanne - November 29, 2010 | 12:54 pm · Link
Ironically, the ad at the top of this page is for an organization called “Opt-Out Alliance” and currently reads “Don’t Fear The TSA!”.
Dennis SGMM - November 29, 2010 | 12:59 pm · Link
By all means, let’s create a vastly increased private security industry. Yes, there is a teeny-tiny chance that some of the money we pay for it may be used to influence our all-too-easily influenced pols but, hey, safety at any price – right?
By the time those people get finished with those turds in Congress you’ll have to get a pat down before you start your car.
Corner Stone - November 29, 2010 | 1:02 pm · Link
@fasteddie9318:
Actually I think this method would resolve the issue of airline security once and for all.
Because after the happy ending I wouldn’t want to fly anywhere, and would probably just go back home for a nap.
Safe and secure, just as the invisible hand intended all along.
fasteddie9318 - November 29, 2010 | 1:14 pm · Link
@Corner Stone:
Just make sure you wrap it up before you head to the airport. Nobody ever knows where the Invisible Hand has been.
Mike Kay (Team America) - November 29, 2010 | 1:18 pm · Link
this is just flame bait for the firebaggers.
ricky - November 29, 2010 | 1:18 pm · Link
@Brick Oven Bill:
Over reach? Or reach around?
Tsulagi - November 29, 2010 | 1:18 pm · Link
@Paris:
That was my first thought. Plus maybe wear a metal cock ring for the process to try to trigger/score an enhanced pat down.
bcinaz - November 29, 2010 | 1:22 pm · Link
This sounds great – free market security solutions. It worked perfectly in Iraq.
ricky - November 29, 2010 | 1:23 pm · Link
@azlib:
Does a “recovering libertarian” cure the problem with a twelve jerk program?
shecky - November 29, 2010 | 1:25 pm · Link
John, uh, that frothy spittle is building up on the side of your mouth again.
ricky - November 29, 2010 | 1:29 pm · Link
@Corner Stone:
Back with lotion? I thought you said you went out for the Jif!
http://www.google.com/imgres?i.....#038;ty=69
Svensker - November 29, 2010 | 1:44 pm · Link
I think there must be a state sponsored monopoly on frikkin TSA THREADS AROUND HERE! ! !
How am I supposed to avoid working when you’re boring me?
Jay in Oregon - November 29, 2010 | 2:51 pm · Link
@suzanne:
At least you had the freedom to make a rational and informed choice for yourself instead of having The State decide which political philosophies made for good nookie.
Besides, your guilt cannot compare to the shame I bear for going into business with one. I’m still (literally!) paying for that mistake…
Paris - November 29, 2010 | 3:03 pm · Link
@Mr Furious: Just like what happened on 9/11/01.
ervington - November 29, 2010 | 3:57 pm · Link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6CkltzGAxY
privatization of security parody by frye and laurie suggests how privatization might actually work.
kip - November 29, 2010 | 4:03 pm · Link
@Mr Furious:
Personally, I like the idea of free-market security people allowing all the terrorists on the same plane.
Oh wait a moment. Didn’t I actually see Denzel Washington make that movie?
Carnacki - November 29, 2010 | 5:41 pm · Link
@kip: Spoiler alert:
Don Cheadle in Traitor and it was a bus.
DougW - November 30, 2010 | 12:26 am · Link
Woo Hoo! Can I go through the Mr Leather Line?