Tired of Safety? Republicans push for abolishment of TSA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Burgawnc
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 88
  • Views: 1K
  • Politics 
4thgenheel said:
i don't think anyone imagined what their plan was or else other passengers would've fought like they did on flight 93.
Click to expand...
True also. I think it's safe to say, even if airport security remained private and box cutters remained permitted, no terrorists would ever successfully hijack a plane with them, again.
 
superrific said:
It's not hard to predict what will happen. The private firms will start cutting corners and it will build up until they are actually foisting lots of risk on the rest of us. Then there will be a catastrophic failure. It's always the same story. And no, businesses "thinking long-term" isn't a solution. Businesses are not capable of that, because there's always going to be a couple of short-term, get-rich-quick strivers who will set the industry standards (i.e. lower to compete on price). If Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers couldn't think long-term enough to avoid sudden insolvency, what makes anyone think a security contractor would do the same.

The private sector is good at providing services with a risk of failure, and so for situations were failure is acceptable, the private sector is fine. Google has created a lot of useful tech. They also created Google Glasses, a huge misfire. Eh, nobody died from Google Glasses. Not a problem.

But when failure isn't an option, the government needs to step in. Because the complaint about government made by libertarians -- lack of profit motive! -- is also what makes the government generally reliable. The government will not cut corners, unless idiots in Congress try to mandate it.

This isn't just applicable in the security context. Why does housing construction generally need to get approval from city inspectors? When I got a new furnace, I had to get the city's sign-off. Same with my solar panels. Why? Because there's no room for mistakes. It would be really bad if my ceiling crashed in on my head, or my house filled with carbon monoxide. There's no second chance for such things. You don't let the people who profit from shoddy work be the ones to inspect that work.
Click to expand...
I always thought the TSA was an overreaction. I don't believe the private screeners even messed up on 9/11, as box cutters were not banned weapons at the time. And it is not as though TSA is foolproof. In terms of bang for the buck, TSA might be one of the first agencies I'd be willing to scale back (as opposed to national park service, education dept., social security. etc., etc.)

To me, TSA engages in a lot of kabuki theater for deterrence reasons, but the wasted time and expense is a net negative from a utilitarian point of view. I think the private security system of pre 9/11 is not a terrible idea, but I'd want it to be carefully studied and not just DOGE'ed for the hell of it.
 
Few of Trump MAGA voters fly for any reason, so he won’t suffer if TSA goes away. Only elite liberals fly around everywhere
 
TSA is terrible and largely ineffective. There have been plenty of studies showing its ineffectiveness. It needs a major overhaul and how we handle airport and airplane security needs a major overhaul. That said - placing this responsibility in the private sector is ridiculously stupid. Not only will it inevitably lead to higher travel costs - it will almost certainly lead to cost cutting by the airports which eventually leads to some sort of catastrophe. It should also be noted that many of the country's airports aren't private enterprises. What happens then? I guess the states or local municipalities have to bear the responsibility. Again - this will lead to higher costs, variable quality, and inevitably poor results. Of course the party of billionaires doesn't give a shit. How many in Trump's cabinet have flown on a commercial jet in the last 24 months? I bet the number is very, very low.
 
ZenMode said:
True also. I think it's safe to say, even if airport security remained private and box cutters remained permitted, no terrorists would ever successfully hijack a plane with them, again.
Click to expand...
I think the goal is to not be in a position where passengers have to defend themselves from a hijacker. One can say "TSA is ineffective" and still be in a place where deterrence and detection are effective tools preventing or significantly reducing the risk of a terrorist hijacking.
 
Calheel said:
I always thought the TSA was an overreaction. I don't believe the private screeners even messed up on 9/11, as box cutters were not banned weapons at the time. And it is not as though TSA is foolproof. In terms of bang for the buck, TSA might be one of the first agencies I'd be willing to scale back (as opposed to national park service, education dept., social security. etc., etc.)

To me, TSA engages in a lot of kabuki theater for deterrence reasons, but the wasted time and expense is a net negative from a utilitarian point of view. I think the private security system of pre 9/11 is not a terrible idea, but I'd want it to be carefully studied and not just DOGE'ed for the hell of it.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of TSA is Kabuki but I'm not sure what we would change. I don't really think anyone needs to be worried about knives or guns much more than we were pre 9/11. At least no more than they would in other public settings. No one is going to get the pilot to open up that door. If that was the only concern, you could go back to the present but fairly lax standards of pre 9/11.

The real worry is explosives and I'm not sure if anything close to pre 9/11 standards would catch that. Shoe bombs and underwear bombs are a thing and we actually got pretty lucky neither of them worked. But if we are doing all that work to stop explosives, might as well look for box cutters as well.
 
ZenMode said:
Fine with me. TSA employees are no more skilled, capable or intelligent because they work for the government. The government just makes airport security more expensive.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it will get better by making it private? How exactly is less government oversight going to improve things?
 
rodoheel said:
What makes you think it will get better by making it private? How exactly is less government oversight going to improve things?
Click to expand...
It's been a long time but I do think the government guys, while not exactly trained SAS guys, are better than the security guys who we had pre 9/11 who were basically minimum wage rent a cops.

Not sure if we can get the same quality of candidate without the generous government benefits and pension and the Union. I could see it being possible but maybe not.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
It's been a long time but I do think the government guys, while not exactly trained SAS guys, are better than the security guys who we had pre 9/11 who were basically minimum wage rent a cops.

Not sure if we can get the same quality of candidate without the generous government benefits and pension and the Union. I could see it being possible but maybe not.
Click to expand...
Wagner Group has already made a very competitive bid for the airport security contract.
 
Hasn't SFO been using private contractors to screen passengers for years?
 
wmheel1287 said:
That's the 2nd comment you've made around here in 2 weeks that should result in you no longer being here.
Click to expand...
This is one of those tough guy MAGATs. He would have single handedly killed all of the terrorists, then landed the plane, and slept with all of the stewardesses. He’s like John McClane but whiter and better. /s
You know what would make planes safer. The pub wet dream. They can all carry their handguns on the plane. Imagine how fun that would be…
 
Last edited:
rodoheel said:
What makes you think it will get better by making it private? How exactly is less government oversight going to improve things?
Click to expand...
IT probably wouldn't get significantly better. Going back to private security would probably just be less expensive, more efficient and would result in eliminating a large government department.
 
wmheel1287 said:
That's the 2nd comment you've made around here in 2 weeks that should result in you no longer being here.
Click to expand...
That's the second time in two weeks I've been reminded that some people can't handle an unpopular opinion and would prefer to just have it silenced.
 
ZenMode said:
That's the second time in two weeks I've been reminded that some people can't handle an unpopular opinion and would prefer to just have it silenced.
Click to expand...
Not about opinions or silencing at all. It's about reasonable personal restraint on your own discourse. You can't run around assigning murderous intent to huge swaths of people and victim blaming innocent dead people and expect others to engage with your opinions.

You are free to have whatever disgusting opinions you like and a board of people who want to have reasonable discussion can eventually decide if they want you around or if your contribution is to merely inflame and divert from reasonable discussion.
 
p5mmr9 said:
I think the goal is to not be in a position where passengers have to defend themselves from a hijacker. One can say "TSA is ineffective" and still be in a place where deterrence and detection are effective tools preventing or significantly reducing the risk of a terrorist hijacking.
Click to expand...
Agree. I don't think that government or privately run security would have disallowed box cutters pre-9/11. I also think box cutters and small knives would have been disallowed post-9/11 under both private and government security.
 
farce© said:
That’s comforting. Mercenaries roughing up “suspects” in security lines.
Click to expand...
Right? I still wonder how we, as a society, survived the (insert number of years that airports existed and had non government security pre-9/11) before the government rode in on its white horse and saved us. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top