0 votes

I support full body scans at airports.

I see some people confusing a libertarian philosophy with having to be against this. But that's not true.

If the airlines had complete control, without government interference, they would install the full body scan equipment if it helped ticket sales. I think if you polled most people now, they would support full body scans.

What we should question GOVERNMENT involvement, not whether searches should take place. Because they would happen anyway under total private control. And it wouldn't be a matter of your personal rights, but a matter of the airlines' private property rights.

If the government is requiring something that the airlines would require anyway if government stayed out of the way, it's not that big of a deal in terms of violation of personal rights. It's simply a shoddy simulation of what would happen if government didn't get involved. The protection would probably simply be better and cheaper, if government weren't involved.

Dr. Paul is adamant that the airlines could protect us better than government. If that's so, then the scrutiny and searches before entering an airplane would probably be even be MORE strict and invasive, though probably more time efficient.

Another thing to look at is that 9/11 posed a national security threat, so there is a case for some government involvement if there is a national security threat, but of course not searches without consent. But making the search constitutional would simply be a matter of the airline posting a sign saying that they require you to go through the government searches in order to board a plane. Then, this would just be them exercising their property rights. I bet that if you asked them now, they would probably say they DO consent to the searches to keep their passengers safe. So the constitutionality would be a non-issue.

Just something to think about, for those who were thinking that living in a free society means you have to accept being unsafe on an airplane.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Weird- private searches better than gov't searches?

Do you support full body scans at malls, where terrorists might also pop out and get you? How about schools? How about restaurants?

They are everywhere, you know. The crazies.

I agree, it's not about us versus the government, it's about us versus EVERYONE. Since you cannot trust anyone anywhere at any time, there should be full body scanners basically at every street corner. With private assistants doing pat downs on anyone we are suspicious of.

Think where we would be if we had allowed "bankruptcy"

instead of mass money laundering, local peoples would have been picking up the pieces and already recovering, at least know who the culprits were.
Yet we now have even more of the same disease, and told to let it fester.

What if we allowed "profiling" which included the "back of hand" pat-down of men only excluding women and children, yet xray all baggage?
This would increase our percentages of attack by 30 to 50%, but what's 30% of a non-event?
All this security repression is a distraction from the Agenda 21 take over of the north american resources by the bribe makers and bribe takers.
Otherwise, it's called treason and prison building.
When government/corps get this big, they feed us lies and distract us physically and financially and call it innocent turn style detainment and confounding of the minds of men.
There is plenty of risk in life, and we have already done much to protect airlines. But it's this gov/corp/military oppression that says we may be better off "bankrupting" this push to "find terrorist before they strike" ambiguity, especially with "profiling" being "politicized".

It is "we the people" that more times than not, subdue the situation and do the good fight as we wait for the so called "good guy" protector to show up.

So, do you want to live in a town where everyone owns a gun, or do you want a town which is a lock down, but forbidden for you to own a gun for personal protection?
We are being scammed by the war on terror, just as we are being scammed by the war on drugs and further, the "media" that scams us all daily.
Enough is enough. And endocrination of children and "security" persons is disolving logic.
OK, I don't fly for a living, yet the airlines and terrorist do not compare with the deaths from other causes, except when a bomb is dropped out of one in the "war is a racquet" scenario.
I for one, will not see a medical doctor for other than blunt trauma injuries. Their "medicine" is poison. Doctors kill many people.
When we "reduce" the size of government, wherever it exist, and give the guns and land back to the people, choice, back to the people, we will begin creating new ways of life as libety, freedom and the entreprenuer provide.
Even though the killing of innocents in WACO was an accident ... the question is ... why was the government there in the first place, that demanded such show of force?

If this was truly a war, the loss of one plane, say every year is a small price to pay for freedom.
Despite the dangers, I would still fly. The odds are you'll get in car wreck before you'll be blown up in an airliner.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry

And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Real Freedom means....

having to take some risks...and sometimes prevention is the worst kind of tyrranny....

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had." - Eric Schmidt

reedr3v's picture

I support your right to be scanned

or groped or whatever measure makes you feel safe. And if an airline voluntarily chose this precaution I'd support their right to demand compiance from customers.
And I'd support any customers who chose to take their business to an airline that did not choose those particular screening methods.

The problem with government mandates is that there is little room to escape; they don't allow competitive, innovative alternatives. We can avoid flying, or if we can afford private aviation that is an alternative. But since the government already wrecked railroad progress and development, trains are an antiquated, slow alternative. And cars for long distances have their inefficient aspects. Government control of every facet of transportation is another huge area that is being ruined for the general public.

Government officials fly in style and have no problem being herded and prodded like cattle.

Great points

and LOL about "I support your right to be scanned and groped."

Wouldn't happen long in a

Wouldn't happen long in a free market.

It is precisely this type of asinine babbling that turns people off from libertarianism.

So, defending the rights of some company to treat its customers and employees like crap (that would be unlikely in a true free marker) does not go over well with the plebeians.

Completely counterproductive.

in other words, in my utopia,

in other words, in my utopia, things would be perfect.

I think the first airline to end the use of scanners

would get all the business they could take. Free market would eliminate this nonsense in a hearbeat.

And they could charge higher fares for not having to expose yourself to pediphiles and perverts.

how do you know they've tried

how do you know they've tried and failed?

what would it take to convince you THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU?

I'm Convinced you are a troll

Your comments show you are ignorant and have no idea what liberty and free markets are all about.

Go somewhere else and vent your stupidity.

yeah right buddy

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" Sam Adams

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin

Quit quoting Franklin. What

Quit quoting Franklin.

What is "essential liberty" and what is "little temporary safety"?

pretty simple

essential Liberty is freedom of course...the right to privacy, free speech, fair trial, a weapon to protect yourself...the basic fundamentals of the constitution and the governments job is to uphold those principles not to keep us "safe" from supposed terror (which they don't do such a good job of anyway). Feel free to step through a radiation booth if you don't agree with the constitution.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Right to privacy? Wasn't Ron

Right to privacy?

Wasn't Ron Paul the person who said "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."

Does Ron Paul support Roe v Wade on the grounds of PRIVACY?

Why haven't airline companies spoken out against scanners and searches? Don't they want happy customers? If airlines authorized and demanded the search, would that be OK?

reedr3v's picture

I challenge you to give a source for that.

You apparently come here to vent your dislike of libertarianism. Why waste your time and ours?

We have many more rights than listed in the Constitution

Primarily through the 9th and 10th amendments. We have unlimited rights. Privacy if you want it is yours to claim. The constitution only limits the power of the federal government not our rights.

but I don't expect you to say

but I don't expect you to say corporations have unlimited rights, or that the Federal Reserve has unlimited rights, why are rights always a one way street for you guys?

Why don't you allow and expect the same rights for people who you hate and work against you?

Obviously only here

to put down people's opinions. Get off your high horse and go away. Maybe listen to some Murray Rothbard before you criticize anything about libertarians.

Corporations aren't people. Individual people in the corporations have unlimited rights as long as they do not intrude on the property rights of others. The corporations do not.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

This is a learning opportunity

Don't be so quick to dismiss "BKV". Every point they raise is addressable with libertarian and free market/competitive solutions.

You are confounding artificial fictitious entities with

real people.

Only real people have rights.

Legal fictions can not.

I don't have any issue with any other individual claiming his or her rights, no matter what I think of them or they of me.

But the Federal Reserve, and other corporations, are legal fictions. They have no rights.

Is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

He's only

here to cause trouble.
That's all he's done since he showed up.

I think he's vying for the "Fedor Memorial Trophy" as biggest asshole in the shortest period of time.

Older account that just became active again. Typical troll profile.

I kind of appreciated

Fedor's willingness to debate and hold his ground,But the anti christian mono topic format he presented constantly was his undoing for sure.I can't believe Michael let him back on and he went right back at it again.I guess some just can't be fixed.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Ron Paul..

You are correct it was not a listed out right in the constiution, but you also have the right not to be video taped in the shower without consent do you not? It is your property right over yourself that restricts the government from invading your privacy and making you submit to illegal searches.

Ron Paul wishes to overturn roe vs. wade because he does not believe this is a federal issue. He believes states are better left to decide laws of their areas for themselves. If one group of people are pro-life they can live in a pro-life are of the country if another is pro-choice then they can live in a pro-choice area. Not everyone will agree on an issue like that.

Reguarding airlines, People would be complaining about airlines doing such things, airliners get subsudies from the federal government therefor they have to go along with the governments security measures or they do not get the $$. Therefor the airlines aren't exactly an example of a free market enterprise.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

>>you also have the right not

>>you also have the right not to be video taped in the shower without consent do you not?

Other than the fact I'm nicely allowed to have it, no, I do not.

"My property right over myself that restricts the government"? WOW, how magical, the government just stops at this invisible glass wall?

>>Ron Paul wishes to overturn roe vs. wade because he does not believe this is a federal issue.

So essentially some states are allowed to legalize murder according to him. Does he believe the right to life is conditional to a State?

>>>Reguarding airlines, People would be complaining about airlines doing such things.

Oh, so you believe you have a right to fly a non-subsidized airline? You DO, find one that doesn't! Despite the fact airlines aren't free, you've not been discouraged to pay them, ain't that life! Doing things you hate because nobody gives you a better alternative choice.

Your comment on the shower scene is a bit nonsensical,

can you elaborate?

On the "magical wall" that stops government...

There's nothing magical about it. And the wall is not invisible. (it isn't a 'wall')

Government ONLY has power granted to it. And just to make sure there was no misunderstanding, there were some specific prohibitions against certain actions. (in case some ignorant twit decided he could finagle words to mean something they don't and thus make a plea for a government power that is not there)

On the question of State authority over abortion, there is no Federal law on murder either. (not within State jurisdiction) So this wouldn't be any different. ALL 50 states have murder and manslaughter statutes that operate within their jurisdiction. The Feds have similar statutes that operate within theirs.

There is no abortion statute on the national level, there is only the Supreme Court which "strikes down" state laws curtailing the practice. But a state need not submit itself to the Supreme Court over things which the federal government does not have jurisdiction.

States should be able to restrict or outlaw abortion - are you trying to claim the Congress has this power within the States and the States do NOT?

I have a right to travel unmolested (in this case LITERALLY) to and from any destination I so choose. Please, show me where I do not. Please show me where any government derives the authority to molest me in my travels, to bar me from traveling if I don't submit to molestation, or to demand ANY performance, compliance, or acquiescence to intrusions into my personal life or my person merely for my wanting to exercise my right to travel.

Considering all of your posts I have read, please tell me, why are you HERE? (on the DP)

I'm not going to waste any more time responding to such garbage you spew. There are plenty enough resources at your disposal if you truly want to learn, though from your replies so far, that doesn't seem to be the case.

tell that to libertarian

tell that to libertarian idiots who pretend like they care about government size, privacy, when in fact, ONLY WHEN IT BENEFITS THEM.

I bet you these people have no problem invading privacy of bankers, NWO conspirators if it got them convicted for crimes they wanted.

I bet you none of these libertarians are on the side of Michael Mann when his e-mails are subpoenaed, or none of them cried foul when CRU e-mails were hacked.

Somehow these people convinced themselves they have a RIGHT to travel on airplanes free from interference. Where in the Constitution can you find it says "A person has a right to ride an airplane in the 21st century without showing his genitals"?

Um, is that sarcasm? It almost sounds sincere if it weren't

so absurd.

are you down

with cavity searches too?

That's coming

Wait until the next failed bomber is caught trying to light a stick of dynamite that is hidden up his a**.

The nude scanners will not show that so they will increase the x-ray amount to create a Total Recall style skeleton image, or you can opt out for the cavity search.

nonsense

the first airline to implement it would be driven out of business by their competitors who found a more effective, less intrusive way to keep travelers safe.