A free market alternative to TSA

[tangent4ronpaul]

Your chances of being caught up in a terrorist incident even with NO security are right up there with being struck and killed by lightning. So how about this:

If you are worried about it (or just want a thrill), you pay a search and grope fee of say $25 so you can "feel safe" and get yourself molested. Security can be turned over to Hooters and Chippendales with some extra attention available for a good tip. I KNOW it would make money!

Those that did not feel like having to arrive hours early, wait in long lines, getting groped or figuring out what you can and can't take on board and how much of it THIS WEEK, can take our chances on non-secure flights with our only protection being a locked cockpit and a pilot with a gun.

There would probably be a slight surcharge for non-secure flights for the higher insurance risk. I'm sure it would be less than the taxes paid for TSA harassment per-passenger. For that matter, has anyone seen what TSA costs us per passenger? Their budget divided by number of airline passengers would get us in the ballpark. It's probably a pretty obscene number. Yep, TSA's budget for 2011 is 8.2B (virtually all of which is used for airline security) and roughly 1.5M people fly on an average day in the USA. That comes out to $15 in TAXPAYER money per radiate and grope session. The passenger will pay an additional $3-4 in fees for this "privilege". So that comes to a total of $18-19 per passenger, one way.


Please vote for this at Freedom Watch show ideas and post to other forums!

http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/fo...rnative-to-tsa

-t

[jmdrake]

Voted my max.

[tangent4ronpaul]

need help making this go viral - please vote and keep this post bumped!

-t

[dannno]

Lap dances for freedom?

[tangent4ronpaul]

//

[Travlyr]

My choice for a free market alternative to the TSA is to allow airlines laissez-faire competition to compete for business. No TSA. Get government clear out of the tyranny business. If an airline wants to implement security checks, fine. At least, I'll have a choice.

[tangent4ronpaul]

w00t!!!!! - Judge Nap used it - basically....

TOTAL WIN!

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

WOW!, TOTALLY WOW!!!!!!!!!!!! This idea got carried on national media by the Judge, yet only 5 of you bothered to vote for it. How totally, $#@!ing PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



-t

[RonPaulGetsIt]

The answer is to abolish the TSA and then let the airlines and the passengers decide for themselves the level of security they want.

The point is the decision has to be made by the two parties involved, the provider and the customer, not by the coercive fist of government.

See site in my signature for my post on it.

[specsaregood]

The answer is to abolish the TSA and then let the airlines and the passengers decide for themselves the level of security they want.

The point is the decision has to be made by the two parties involved, the provider and the customer, not by the coercive fist of government.

What you are missing is there is a 3rd party. The nonflying public. Ya know all those people in the WTC.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

What you are missing is there is a 3rd party. The nonflying public. Ya know all those people in the WTC.

The possibility of someone overpowering the flight crew, breaking into the cockpit and crashing the plane into a populated target approaches zero with a steel reinforced door and gun in the cockpit.

The remaining security is for the 2 parties with a vested interest in not having bombs aboard, weighed against the cons of overly invasive procedures such as desire to have yourself or loved ones seen naked, exposed to ionizing radiation or felt up.

[specsaregood]

The possibility of someone overpowering the flight crew, breaking into the cockpit and crashing the plane into a populated target approaches zero with a steel reinforced door and gun in the cockpit.

The remaining security is for the 2 parties with a vested interest in not having bombs aboard, weighed against the cons of overly invasive procedures such as desire to have yourself or loved ones seen naked, exposed to ionizing radiation or felt up.

So a plane blowing up in the sky and falling to the earth or being damaged so that it crashes, those aren't a concern for nonflying people on the ground? The people not flying have no reason to be concerned about the safety of airplanes overhead?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Airlines should go the way of every Star Trek starship.

when in danger, AUTODESTRUCT.

[archangel689]

PUT MP5s in the cockpits!

[heavenlyboy34]

So a plane blowing up in the sky and falling to the earth or being damaged so that it crashes, those aren't a concern for nonflying people on the ground? The people not flying have no reason to be concerned about the safety of airplanes overhead?

This theoretical scenario has existed since jets came into existence. That is why people in the aviation business standardized their practices and training.

I don't see why you see any more risk than already existed. If you wanted a perfectly safe world, you would have to limit freedom so much as to make it impossible for any significant freedom whatsoever. (a previous poster mentioned sealing the cockpit, which I agree with, btw)

[heavenlyboy34]

Airlines should go the way of every Star Trek starship.

when in danger, AUTODESTRUCT.

pssh! I'd rather use the FORCE and a lightsaber.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

pssh! I'd rather use the FORCE and a lightsaber.

nerd!