Horwitz on the Evils of the TSA

Steven Horwitz

Here's two media hits on how the TSA is killing Americans:

Canada's Globe and Mail and The Hill. 

Also:  we just finished a great session on public choice problems with nominal GDP targeting in which I responded at length to the various discussions/criticisms here by Pete that us folks arguing for the Fed to have created more liqduity in the Fall of 2008 didn't take public choice seriously.  I will post the relevant part of my remarks shortly.

Comments

[gw2 gold]

A few weeks ago I spoke at a church luncheon. The topic was "money myths" and focused on several statements that most people consider to be true about money -- but are actually false.

[Mario Rizzo]

I have little sympathy for the people who object to the screening. You cannot have the interventionist foreign policy that the US has and expect not to be inconvenienced. Policies have consequences. Sure, it violates our liberties but not more than the scores of other things the State does. The problem is people see only the symptoms and not the (unseen?) causes. I feel worse for the Afghan civilians who are killed as collateral damage by the US military than for the people that are outraged by the body scanners or patdowns.

Of course, there is the question of the effectiveness of all this. But that is an efficiency question about which we can speculate and not in itself a liberty question.

I'd feel better if the US would change its foreign policy stance first before it gets all civil-liberties on us. The former would really be effective in reducing the terrorist threats.

[acuvue oasys]

Mario, I agree with you to an extent however it's a question of privacy. Have you seen the images on the Rap(e)scan machines? They clearly show private parts and after initially stating no images will ever be stored, the TSA backtracked earlier this year and said that's not the case.

[FC]

What about Afghanistan's foreign policy? It sends opium and jihadis into all surrounding countries. Afghans shouldn't be surprised that other countries have felt the need to strike back, beginning with the USSR.

[Mathieu Bédard]

Mario Rizzo;

It could work the other way around. By making security policies more politically costly, it could force officials to rethink their foreign policy.

[Mario Rizzo]

All I am saying is that interventionist foreign policy has costs. This screening business is just one of them. It is interesting how "modest" Americans have suddenly become.

I hope M. Bedard is right.

[The Cuttlefish of Cthulu]

Right Mario, because EVERYONE being hassled by these security procedures is a warmonger who supports US foreign policy unthinkingly, they deserve what they get. What a brilliant, principled viewpoint you have.