7 ms·

Seems to me competitive pressures would lead private firms to do exactly what the TSA is doing i.e. give the appearance of being serious about security. In the

by bdunbar 15y ago

Seems to me competitive pressures would lead private firms to do exactly what the TSA is doing i.e. give the appearance of being serious about security. In the marketplace competitive pressure leads to better service, not worse. LASIK has gone from a novelty for the rich to a treatment everyone can afford, for example. Possibly counter examples exist, but I can't think of any offhand. Perhaps after I've had my morning coffee. The reason I would prefer a private company over government is that you have a choice with a private firm: don't like AA's service, think their security guys are fools? Fly with Southwest. Write a letter to AA. Become a shareholder and annoy the board with your opinions. So do something like this: require private security firms to meet standards X, Y, Z. Enforcement by government inspection. Bust a standard, loose your business license. This works in other areas - workplace safety, food inspection. Am I missing something?

seabee 15y ago
I think you're missing that enforcement by government inspection tends to go against the "unrestricted free market" ideal, that customers will vote with their feet and not patronize unsafe businesses. (In reality customers are never that well informed to make such a decision.)
- bdunbar 15y ago
  In theory an unrestricted free market is nice, in reality unworkable. The role of the State is provide ground rules and regulation of the market. A prudent State recognizes such a thing works best with a light hand, of course. Customers need not be un-informed on safety issues. There are many, many organizations that provide such information to consumers - think Consumer Reports, Ralph Nader and so on.
  - seabee 15y ago
    When you get to matters of safety you can either take an unforgiving, Darwinian view and stake people's survival on whether they read Consumer Reports that month, or you can take responsibility and be proactive about preventing theses dangers. The "pure free market" ideal of caveat emptor makes businesses sound an awful like muggers loitering in dark alleys waiting for victims; something you need to protect yourself from. Sure, in a perfectly rational market and with perfectly informed participants these dangers are known and avoided, but perfection is never achieved in reality. Government regulation and licensing, when done properly, papers over the irrationality and information asymmetry by making the decision of what a business can do. After all, would any rational person eat at a restaurant that gave you food poisoning more often than not? If the government didn't force its closure lack of business would, and with more sick people too.
khafra 15y ago
Your friends can tell you how well their LASIK worked, and how much it cost, as soon as their eyes heal. This allows market forces to do what they do pretty well. Anti-terrorist security measures have neither of these advantages. It's very difficult to find out how much they cost; especially if you include indirect costs to travelers. It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first approximation, terrorists attacks don't happen even with lowered security.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first approximation, terrorists attacks don't happen even with lowered security. This is also a problem with TSA. And we can calculate - roughly - the cost of TSA in delays, wages, missed flights. A good argument just popped into my brain: we used to run security at airports with either local cops or private companies. This worked, pretty well, except for 9/11. But everyone was taken by surprise, then.
  - thesteamboat 15y ago
    We've made effective changes since then -- they just haven't been at screening. Passenger awareness that they should resist and reinforcing cockpit doors have greatly increased security. The TSA? Not so much. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...
bluedanieru 15y ago
No, I have no problem with any of that. The author seemed to be proposing that the government should get out completely, and there would be no standards X, Y, and Z.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  He proposes abolition of the TSA. Which I endorse. Nothing about what to replace it with. Long on emotion, short on details.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    He supports privatizing airports and airliners (both already are so I'm not sure what he's on about) and the 'airways' (presumably he wants to abolish the FAA?). He implies that government intervention in air travel can't make us more secure. It's pretty clear what his solution is, and it isn't a well-regulated air travel industry. It's a not-regulated air travel industry, or nearly so. Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out. He's not talking about regulation here. He thinks solid airline security will just happen.
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      both already are My local public-use airport (Outagamie County Regional Airport) is owned by the county. DFW is owned by the cities of Dallas and Forth Worth. JKF is owned by the City of New York. What airports are owned by private interests? The rest of the points you make I did not see in the article - but I merely skimmed, having read things like that before.

by bdunbar 15y ago

seabee 15y ago

I think you're missing that enforcement by government inspection tends to go against the "unrestricted free market" ideal, that customers will vote with their feet and not patronize unsafe businesses. (In reality customers are never that well informed to make such a decision.)

bdunbar 15y ago
In theory an unrestricted free market is nice, in reality unworkable. The role of the State is provide ground rules and regulation of the market. A prudent State recognizes such a thing works best with a light hand, of course. Customers need not be un-informed on safety issues. There are many, many organizations that provide such information to consumers - think Consumer Reports, Ralph Nader and so on.
- seabee 15y ago
  When you get to matters of safety you can either take an unforgiving, Darwinian view and stake people's survival on whether they read Consumer Reports that month, or you can take responsibility and be proactive about preventing theses dangers. The "pure free market" ideal of caveat emptor makes businesses sound an awful like muggers loitering in dark alleys waiting for victims; something you need to protect yourself from. Sure, in a perfectly rational market and with perfectly informed participants these dangers are known and avoided, but perfection is never achieved in reality. Government regulation and licensing, when done properly, papers over the irrationality and information asymmetry by making the decision of what a business can do. After all, would any rational person eat at a restaurant that gave you food poisoning more often than not? If the government didn't force its closure lack of business would, and with more sick people too.

khafra 15y ago

Your friends can tell you how well their LASIK worked, and how much it cost, as soon as their eyes heal. This allows market forces to do what they do pretty well. Anti-terrorist security measures have neither of these advantages. It's very difficult to find out how much they cost; especially if you include indirect costs to travelers. It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first approximation, terrorists attacks don't happen even with lowered security.

bdunbar 15y ago
It's also very difficult to determine how effective they are since, to a first approximation, terrorists attacks don't happen even with lowered security. This is also a problem with TSA. And we can calculate - roughly - the cost of TSA in delays, wages, missed flights. A good argument just popped into my brain: we used to run security at airports with either local cops or private companies. This worked, pretty well, except for 9/11. But everyone was taken by surprise, then.
- thesteamboat 15y ago
  We've made effective changes since then -- they just haven't been at screening. Passenger awareness that they should resist and reinforcing cockpit doors have greatly increased security. The TSA? Not so much. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-things-he-carried/7057/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/the-thin...

bluedanieru 15y ago

No, I have no problem with any of that. The author seemed to be proposing that the government should get out completely, and there would be no standards X, Y, and Z.

bdunbar 15y ago
He proposes abolition of the TSA. Which I endorse. Nothing about what to replace it with. Long on emotion, short on details.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  He supports privatizing airports and airliners (both already are so I'm not sure what he's on about) and the 'airways' (presumably he wants to abolish the FAA?). He implies that government intervention in air travel can't make us more secure. It's pretty clear what his solution is, and it isn't a well-regulated air travel industry. It's a not-regulated air travel industry, or nearly so. Some might object that private firms will have incentives to cut corners on safety. It is a legitimate concern, but competitive mechanisms tend to weed this out. He's not talking about regulation here. He thinks solid airline security will just happen.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    both already are My local public-use airport (Outagamie County Regional Airport) is owned by the county. DFW is owned by the cities of Dallas and Forth Worth. JKF is owned by the City of New York. What airports are owned by private interests? The rest of the points you make I did not see in the article - but I merely skimmed, having read things like that before.