6 ms·

To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. I find that silly. You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. You probably have a constitutional right to

by atonse 6y ago

To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. I find that silly. You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. You probably have a constitutional right to free movement within the US (whether it's walking, driving, etc). The bigger issue with these pat downs, scans, fluid limits, etc is whether they're effective. Bruce Schneier has written at great length (and very smartly) about this stuff. And I agree with him that the single most effective deterrent to the next 9/11 is secure cockpit doors, and a close second is passengers not willing to "allow" a plane to get hijacked anymore (whereas hijackings in the past had a sliver of hope that you'd get out safely, after 9/11 I think passengers know there might be certain death, so why not fight?)

mixmastamyk 6y ago
It seems you’ve misunderstood the constitution. It limits the government, ensuring our freedom. The govt has no right to prevent us from flying, domestically at least. Other countries are free to make demands at their borders.
- thephyber 6y ago
  The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) limit the government. The Articles of the Constitution assign the rights and responsibilities of the government. > The govt has no right to prevent us from flying You have also misunderstood the Constitution. The government does have the right to limit our individual rights either because we have lost them after due process (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it did immediately after 9/11).
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    Inalienable rights cannot be taken away by governments, which don't have rights. That there are temporary exceptions for prisons and emergencies is inconsequential to this thread.
option 6y ago
I would have no problem with a private company demanding strip search/patdown before boarding their plane. I have a problem with the gov demanding this for everyone.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not being able to use airlines would be a massive restriction. The right to free movement has been written into most every constitution because the framers had actual experience with oppressive government that issued internal passports to silence revolutionaries.
- atonse 6y ago
  That's why I made the distinction. Nobody can prevent you from moving around as a human being. But people absolutely can prevent you from entering their car, van, bus, or their plane. That is their private property. The TSA made this weird (where government employees are enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.
  - gruez 6y ago
    How far can you extend this? * you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely affirmed in the courts) * you don't have the right to use public transport (after all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?) * you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?) * you don't have the right to walk on interstates
    - pb7 6y ago
      * you don't have the right to drive Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can definitely be prohibited from driving for things like DUIs. >* you don't have the right to walk on interstates This is already the case.
      - Fargren 6y ago
        > Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say that they didn't? Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected, that's what makes them rights.
lisper 6y ago
> You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. Of course you do. Read the Ninth Amendment.
- atonse 6y ago
  What rights are being denied? A private company running a private plane is providing you transportation. You don't have ANY rights there. Hell, even under normal circumstances, you could buy a ticket and end up in an overflow situation and the Airline decides who makes it in.
  - lisper 6y ago
    The OP answers this question in excruciating detail.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    This general argument only makes sense when there is vibrant market competition. Otherwise, it is just couching authoritarianism in some illusion of choice. There is little difference between a bona fide government and a corporation that has become so entrenched that people are forced to interact with them. Especially when the entrenched companies cooperate to set industry wide policies.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I find this line of argumentation wrong. You don't have a constitutional right to use internet, computer or even to jack off, but it is generally assumed that as long as you don't get in other's people space, you will not be bothered. Similarly, while there is no explicit right, the argumentation of "it is a privilege" seems.. not sure what the proper word would.. self-serving for the government.
- Floegipoky 6y ago
  I think the distinction between natural rights vs legal rights comes into play here. Society has changed a lot in the time since the Constitution was written, and government isn't exactly incentivized to limit its own power in ways that reflect these changes.
R0b0t1 6y ago
You do have the right to travel. The constitution does not specify a mode. Ergo, all modes are protected equally, and no-fly lists are unconstitutional. It's not like you get a background check to buy a printing press. The ACLU mounted an attack on the no-fly list that was credible enough government changed procedure. This would imply drivers licenses and car registration are also unconstitutional. You can tax them and have traffic laws, but not do those things.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  > You do have the right to travel. The constitution does not specify a mode The constitution does not specify the first bit either; it's all been inferred by court rulings [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    I'm aware, my view is the court's current views are incomplete. Courts can be wrong. What draws the most interest is the right to enter states freely. Combine that with the need to travel and participate in commerce and you quickly arrive at the conclusion the right to travel in general must also be protected, and indeed we can see the hardships brought upon people when they are unable to drive, etc.
    - ac29 6y ago
      Good luck arguing your opinion though - go watch a few videos of "sovereign citizens" trying to argue they don't need a driver's license to "travel" when pulled over driving.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    Always remember the Ninth Amendment: the rights enumerated in the constitution are not more real than the rights which were not explicitly listed.
- MichaelBurge 6y ago
alasdair_ 6y ago
Bruce Schneier writes very well on this, but he also holds up Israel's method as the way to do things, where people are "profiled" by "trained agents" for extra scrutiny, based on their behavior. In other words, if you look like an Arab, you get treated very differently than if your last name is Schneier [1]. And while I'm dubious about claims that all those brown people are "randomly selected" in the USA, there would be serious pushback if the official public policy at US airports was one of racial profiling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling_in_Israel#At_Ben_Gurion_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling_in_Israel#At_...
Reelin 6y ago
> To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. A restriction of your freedoms, whether protected or not, is a restriction of your liberties. Some liberties are constitutionally protected. Some are protected by state law. Some aren't protected at all. They're all still liberties though. Similarly, an employer restricting topics of conversation in the workplace is in fact placing restrictions on your free speech. It's just not constitutionally protected in that instance, is generally permitted by state and local law, and seems to be largely culturally acceptable.
gnopgnip 6y ago
It is in the constitution that your right to travel cannot be suspended without due process. From the 5th amendment, "No person shall be held to answer ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" This applies to flying as it does to all other forms of travel, as restricting flights does not mean the rational basis test

by atonse 6y ago

mixmastamyk 6y ago

It seems you’ve misunderstood the constitution. It limits the government, ensuring our freedom. The govt has no right to prevent us from flying, domestically at least. Other countries are free to make demands at their borders.

thephyber 6y ago
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) limit the government. The Articles of the Constitution assign the rights and responsibilities of the government. > The govt has no right to prevent us from flying You have also misunderstood the Constitution. The government does have the right to limit our individual rights either because we have lost them after due process (eg. you have no right to fly if you are serving a prison sentence) or due to national security actions (eg. you have no right to fly if the country grounds all flights like it did immediately after 9/11).
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Inalienable rights cannot be taken away by governments, which don't have rights. That there are temporary exceptions for prisons and emergencies is inconsequential to this thread.

option 6y ago

I would have no problem with a private company demanding strip search/patdown before boarding their plane. I have a problem with the gov demanding this for everyone.

HarryHirsch 6y ago

You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. Has that even been tested in court? If you live in Hawaii not being able to use airlines would be a massive restriction. The right to free movement has been written into most every constitution because the framers had actual experience with oppressive government that issued internal passports to silence revolutionaries.

atonse 6y ago
That's why I made the distinction. Nobody can prevent you from moving around as a human being. But people absolutely can prevent you from entering their car, van, bus, or their plane. That is their private property. The TSA made this weird (where government employees are enforcing things on "private" land like an airport for a "private" flight) but that's post 9/11 weirdness for you.
- gruez 6y ago
  How far can you extend this? * you don't have the right to drive (I think this widely affirmed in the courts) * you don't have the right to use public transport (after all, if they can ban planes, why not trains or buses?) * you don't have the right to bike (after all, if motor vehicles are regulated, why not all vehicles?) * you don't have the right to walk on interstates
  - pb7 6y ago
    * you don't have the right to drive Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? You can definitely be prohibited from driving for things like DUIs. >* you don't have the right to walk on interstates This is already the case.
    - Fargren 6y ago
      > Is it a "right" if it can be taken away? Of course. Every person that was ever murdered had a right to live, even when it was taken away. Would you say that they didn't? Rights exists regardless of whether they are respected, that's what makes them rights.

lisper 6y ago

> You don't have any constitutional "right" to fly. Of course you do. Read the Ninth Amendment.

atonse 6y ago
What rights are being denied? A private company running a private plane is providing you transportation. You don't have ANY rights there. Hell, even under normal circumstances, you could buy a ticket and end up in an overflow situation and the Airline decides who makes it in.
- lisper 6y ago
  The OP answers this question in excruciating detail.
- mindslight 6y ago
  This general argument only makes sense when there is vibrant market competition. Otherwise, it is just couching authoritarianism in some illusion of choice. There is little difference between a bona fide government and a corporation that has become so entrenched that people are forced to interact with them. Especially when the entrenched companies cooperate to set industry wide policies.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

I find this line of argumentation wrong. You don't have a constitutional right to use internet, computer or even to jack off, but it is generally assumed that as long as you don't get in other's people space, you will not be bothered. Similarly, while there is no explicit right, the argumentation of "it is a privilege" seems.. not sure what the proper word would.. self-serving for the government.

Floegipoky 6y ago
I think the distinction between natural rights vs legal rights comes into play here. Society has changed a lot in the time since the Constitution was written, and government isn't exactly incentivized to limit its own power in ways that reflect these changes.

R0b0t1 6y ago

You do have the right to travel. The constitution does not specify a mode. Ergo, all modes are protected equally, and no-fly lists are unconstitutional. It's not like you get a background check to buy a printing press. The ACLU mounted an attack on the no-fly list that was credible enough government changed procedure. This would imply drivers licenses and car registration are also unconstitutional. You can tax them and have traffic laws, but not do those things.

InitialLastName 6y ago
> You do have the right to travel. The constitution does not specify a mode The constitution does not specify the first bit either; it's all been inferred by court rulings [0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
- R0b0t1 6y ago
  I'm aware, my view is the court's current views are incomplete. Courts can be wrong. What draws the most interest is the right to enter states freely. Combine that with the need to travel and participate in commerce and you quickly arrive at the conclusion the right to travel in general must also be protected, and indeed we can see the hardships brought upon people when they are unable to drive, etc.
  - ac29 6y ago
    Good luck arguing your opinion though - go watch a few videos of "sovereign citizens" trying to argue they don't need a driver's license to "travel" when pulled over driving.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  Always remember the Ninth Amendment: the rights enumerated in the constitution are not more real than the rights which were not explicitly listed.
MichaelBurge 6y ago

alasdair_ 6y ago

Bruce Schneier writes very well on this, but he also holds up Israel's method as the way to do things, where people are "profiled" by "trained agents" for extra scrutiny, based on their behavior. In other words, if you look like an Arab, you get treated very differently than if your last name is Schneier [1]. And while I'm dubious about claims that all those brown people are "randomly selected" in the USA, there would be serious pushback if the official public policy at US airports was one of racial profiling. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling_in_Israel#At_Ben_Gurion_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_profiling_in_Israel#At_...

Reelin 6y ago

> To me this isn't a question of liberty or not. A restriction of your freedoms, whether protected or not, is a restriction of your liberties. Some liberties are constitutionally protected. Some are protected by state law. Some aren't protected at all. They're all still liberties though. Similarly, an employer restricting topics of conversation in the workplace is in fact placing restrictions on your free speech. It's just not constitutionally protected in that instance, is generally permitted by state and local law, and seems to be largely culturally acceptable.

gnopgnip 6y ago

It is in the constitution that your right to travel cannot be suspended without due process. From the 5th amendment, "No person shall be held to answer ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" This applies to flying as it does to all other forms of travel, as restricting flights does not mean the rational basis test