0 votes

TSA Invasiveness is a TANGENT

The TSA claims they can do anything they want to travelers because the travelers are not compelled to travel by air, hence their purchase of a ticket implies consent so long as the terms are stated.

They are right. Mutually consenting adults can do anything they want to each other as long as there are no substantial externalities and travellers do, indeed, consent to the terms of the contract when they purchase an airline ticket.

All of the TSA noise misses the real point:

The government as given itself a monopoly on implementing traveler safety.




Comment viewing options

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

Curious,

Does the Airline, tell the consumer, that they will be subjected to x-rays, microwaves, or sexual assault?

If not, the contract is null and void.

Contract wording....

The contract wording doesn't have to be understood to be enforceable under court precedent. They might simply say something indirect like "...in accord with TSA policy..." and that's that. It becomes the customer's responsibility to figure out what "TSA policy" is.

We've heard that some who "opt out" are liable for some amount of money. Even that may be covered under some terminology in the contract which it is the responsibility of the customer to figure out.

The whole situation is obscene but it is not obscene because people are claiming the right to subject passengers to treatments that might, in a nonconsentual environment, result in even capital punishment.

It is obscene because the government is claiming that its monopoly position is necessary due to the potential externalities of a contract between private carriers and their passengers. There is virtually no contract, nor even natural activity, that does not bear the _potential_ of externalities so severe that the government could make a plausible argument that it must take control to contain the risk.

Who knows what you might do if you can just drive a car, buy stuff, looks stuff up on the internet, breath...

The problem isn't that the government might engage in prevention of nasty externalities, but that it is making irrational judgements, like, oh -- I don't know --

PROMOTING IMMIGRATION AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS FOR DECADES ON END

And that's just for starters...

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

The

airports hold a monopoly on timely travel leaving most people with the option of submission or finding a new job, new friends, or new family members to visit. I honesty can't truly believe that this has gotten this far, and that we have not already reversed it. We truly don't have any power left.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Sorry, but I do not believe

Sorry, but I do not believe private companies can A. NOT inform people, in LARGE print, that their constitutional rights are given up to use their product, and B. That they could legally even do this.

However, that is one of the reasons I am not so quick to give private companies huge contracts to do things which may violate my rights, because am not certain there have been enough tests on item B., above.