3 ms·

Indeed. Personally I'm surprised there aren't more comparisons to travel restrictions placed on black people during the Jim Crow era. Restricting someone's mo

by davidp 13y ago

Indeed. Personally I'm surprised there aren't more comparisons to travel restrictions placed on black people during the Jim Crow era. Restricting someone's mode of travel even domestically, in such a way that they are at a significant economic disadvantage to their (comparatively) unrestricted fellow citizens is a true punishment; without due process it's just a weapon. Potentially even worse, since it's so insidious, is that the fear of getting put on "the list" can have a chilling effect on the perfectly legitimate activities of loyal, law-abiding citizens. Suppose you're a person of color or muslim, who happens to be interested in learning about the enemy (e.g. Al Qaeda). One obvious way would be to look at their forums online. But wouldn't you be at least a little bit afraid that someone's watching for people browsing to those sites, discovering your ethnicity and background, and slapping you onto the list? From the other side, why wouldn't the watcher put you on the list, just in case? There are no negative consequences for the individual doing so (because no oversight/warrant procedure), and what if he/she "missed the next terrorist" (i.e. maybe you, as far as they know)? It's a no-brainer and could even be rationalized by otherwise well-meaning people as being patriotic. Imagine the poster on their cubicle wall of the burning WTC towers, with "NEVER AGAIN" underneath. This warrantless, unsupervised paroxysm of fear has got to stop. We are Americans. We do not live in fear. We do not sacrifice our freedoms for security. We are willing to accept that some of us may have to die because we exercise those freedoms, and we know that the answer to "What if there's another 9/11?" is "Then we will survive and triumph through that, too."

alexqgb 13y ago
Exactly. And if you're honest about it, there are no "alternatives". Seriously, name one alternative to air travel that offers comparable value in terms of time and cost. You can't. Because there aren't any. Given the distances at which is makes the most sense to fly, all of the "alternatives" impose massive burdens in terms of both time and cost. To see just how important these are (and how abusive the "alternative" argument really is) consider the inverse, in which you're randomly banned from transit that uses wheels and were told that "as an alternative" you should "just" take a helicopter to the office every day. Figuring out how to pay for that is your problem. Can't pay? Well, then it's not really an alternative, is it?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > Exactly. And if you're honest about it, there are no "alternatives". Seriously, name one alternative to air travel that offers comparable value in terms of time and cost. You can't. Because there aren't any. Given the distances at which is makes the most sense to fly, all of the "alternatives" impose massive burdens in terms of both time and cost. Yup. I have driven across the entire country (~3000 miles) 3 times in the past 3 years. Anyone who says that driving is a substitute for flying, even domestically, is an idiot. I was able to do that drive those times because my schedule permitted it, my bank account permitted it, and my car was in good enough shape to manage it without leaving me stranded with costly repairs. (The reason I did it was because I enjoyed it.) Had those stars not aligned, it would not have been feasible in the slightest. Forbidding people to fly, even domestically, is incredibly unreasonable.

by davidp 13y ago

alexqgb 13y ago

Exactly. And if you're honest about it, there are no "alternatives". Seriously, name one alternative to air travel that offers comparable value in terms of time and cost. You can't. Because there aren't any. Given the distances at which is makes the most sense to fly, all of the "alternatives" impose massive burdens in terms of both time and cost. To see just how important these are (and how abusive the "alternative" argument really is) consider the inverse, in which you're randomly banned from transit that uses wheels and were told that "as an alternative" you should "just" take a helicopter to the office every day. Figuring out how to pay for that is your problem. Can't pay? Well, then it's not really an alternative, is it?

jlgreco 13y ago
> Exactly. And if you're honest about it, there are no "alternatives". Seriously, name one alternative to air travel that offers comparable value in terms of time and cost. You can't. Because there aren't any. Given the distances at which is makes the most sense to fly, all of the "alternatives" impose massive burdens in terms of both time and cost. Yup. I have driven across the entire country (~3000 miles) 3 times in the past 3 years. Anyone who says that driving is a substitute for flying, even domestically, is an idiot. I was able to do that drive those times because my schedule permitted it, my bank account permitted it, and my car was in good enough shape to manage it without leaving me stranded with costly repairs. (The reason I did it was because I enjoyed it.) Had those stars not aligned, it would not have been feasible in the slightest. Forbidding people to fly, even domestically, is incredibly unreasonable.