1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11475/the-right-to-see-you-naked/

The Right to See You Naked

January 18, 2010 by

How about rechampioning the long-lost freedom of association, which would have given private firms like Northwest Airlines the incentive to reject passengers on the basis of whatever metric they deem appropriate? FULL ARTICLE by Christopher Westley

{ 32 comments }

Guard January 18, 2010 at 9:25 am

Thanks for the quote from Mises. I also have observed that when the statist urges everyone to “do something” about social problems, the only acceptable form of “doing” is some kind of state enforced action. The usual occupation of righteous men – honest labor, raising a family, charitable activities – none of this is considered “doing something”.

Hard Rain January 18, 2010 at 9:35 am

The Federal government has spent about $40 billion since 9/11 on airport security that amounted to zilch when Underwear Bomber made it on board.

This doesn’t even include the billions lost in time and personal expense for the sake of “security”.

Experts admit they can’t even secure the areas where passengers line-up in droves to undergo screening from a potential attack in the first place.

I agree with Bruce Schneier: “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.”

Airport security is statist smoke-and-mirrors.

Steve Hogan January 18, 2010 at 9:55 am

I had the pleasure of flying internationally in the post-undie bomber era. Not content with scanning my carry on bag and having me walk shoeless through the metal detector (I had forgotten to put a dozen coins through the scanner, and the metal detector didn’t go off!), the crack security dweebs inspected everyone’s bag a second time and corralled us like cattle in a holding pen before boarding the aircraft. They confiscated food and drinks people had purchased in the terminal after the initial screen.

What does this tell us? That the airport security squads don’t trust their own screening techniques. They shouldn’t, because they don’t work and are a monumental waste of time and resources.

What to do? Undermine the motivation behind the terrorist threat. End all the stupid foreign wars and bring the troops home. Meanwhile, disband the TSA and return airline security to the airlines. Allow insurance companies to charge based on the efficacy of airline security. Problem solved.

Doug M January 18, 2010 at 10:26 am

The irony is that frequent fliers have been joking about how it was good that Richard Reed didn’t have a bomb in his underwear for years, and yet the screeners apparently hadn’t considered it.

Given the failure of government airport security, and the success of passengers in subduing terrorists, government security should be reduced or eliminated and passenger training in subduing terrorists should be made available.

Hard Rain January 18, 2010 at 10:30 am

The “security theater” air travelers have to endure is humiliating, time-consuming, ineffective, wasteful, and completely unconstitutional.

How have we put up with it for so long?

Russ January 18, 2010 at 10:42 am

Steve Hogan wrote:

“What to do? Undermine the motivation behind the terrorist threat. End all the stupid foreign wars and bring the troops home.”

You really think that this will end the threat? I think that’s naive. There are plenty of Muslims who consider Western culture the equivalent of an infectious disease; even free trade with them would be considered anathema to them if it introduces their children to that terrible Western culture. And they care for classical liberalism about as much as Hitler did, and consider it one of the worst, most decadent parts of our culture, much as many Western religious conservatives do.

I think the best way to deal with the terrorist problem in airports is simple; profiling. Yeah, how politically incorrect, huh? But I think it’s better than wasting the taxpayers’ money and the TSA agents’ time doing things like scanning the arm casts of 8 year old girls with blond hair and blue eyes with metal detectors, while not bothering the swarthy gentleman with the hook nose and the Koran at all. (And I actually saw the episode with the 8 year old girl with my own eyes. That’s not just my typical creative elaboration.)

Another solution; let the airports and airlines pay for their own security measures. Then the airlines can compete, and people who want to held up in line for 6 hours for a false sense of security can do so. People can vote with their money for the amount of security they think appropriate.

Caley McKibbin January 18, 2010 at 10:54 am

“while not bothering the swarthy gentleman with the hook nose and the Koran at all.”

That would be politically incorrect. It wouldn’t even be possible in Canada where the government has a kangaroo court trying people for so much as making fun of Islam.

Kerem Tibuk January 18, 2010 at 11:21 am

“How about rechampioning the long-lost freedom of association”

Here on Mises.org where IP socialism is running rampant? I dont think so.

If you think you have right to associate with yourself with someone elses IP without his consent, why wouldnt you have right to see them naked?

Nobody is touching anybody and nobody is losing anything. What if they see you naked? You still have your body. Right? Also you dont own your naked image right?

Russ January 18, 2010 at 11:41 am

Caley McKibbin wrote:

“That would be politically incorrect….”

Yeah, it’s crazy. We can have such crap security that we risk people getting blown up in the air. That’s OK. But offending the sensibilities of an unassimilated minority is beyond the pale!

Kerem Tibuk wrote:

“Here on Mises.org where IP socialism is running rampant? I dont think so.”

Give it a rest, will ya? If you don’t have any arguments good enough to convince people to be pro-IP, take it like a man, and try to formulate better arguments, instead of name-calling all the time. You’re almost as bad as Mark Hubbard.

“You still have your body. Right? Also you dont own your naked image right?”

The point is, this stuff might be enforced by the government, instead of us having the choice to use an airline that does or does not use full-body scanning. Then, if we don’t like it, our only choice is not to fly, which hurts the economy.

David K. Meller January 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm

This appalling abuse by government will end when Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer stop taking the ravings by the government about so-called “terrorism” seriously, when we start to see that the real terrorists,as far as we are concerned, are the preposterous crooks, clowns, and now, for all we know, perverts in “Homeland Security”, who so shamelessly exploit–and perhaps even create–any excuse for their idiot employees to violate our dignity, our rights, and even fundamental decency!

When enough people admit that the formation of Homeland Security after 9-11, was a terrible mistake; when we acknowledge the wisdom of Ben Franklin’s saying “those who give up essential liberty for the sake of a little temporary security, deserve neither”, and when enough of us taxpayers are more afraid of the ‘terrorists” in DC inflicting such indignities upon us, than the dullards, clowns and stooges associated with “Al-Q’aida”, we shall then retake our airports, our security, and most importantly, our country!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
David K. Meller

Joe Robertson January 18, 2010 at 1:05 pm

The body scanner conversation never happened thanks to the controlled conversation by the MSM. Sure we have discussion online on certain blogs (thank you Mises.org) but it’s off the radar screen of average joe American.

Obviously we can debate the security enhancements of a technology that does not detect the very substances used by hot pants.

What can not be debated is that the further erosion of our Liberty. Do we learn nothing from history?

Russ January 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm

David K. Meller wrote:

“This appalling abuse by government will end when Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer stop taking the ravings by the government about so-called “terrorism” seriously….”

Yeah, after all, there really was no Nigerian nutburger smuggling explosives into an airplane in his undies. And the explosive didn’t get ignited and misfire, thankfully only harming the terrorist. In fact, there was no explosive, and no Nigerian nutburger. *waves hand* This is not the terrorist you’re looking for. You can go about your business.

*rolls eyes*

Steve Hogan January 18, 2010 at 1:33 pm

Russ wrote:

“You really think that this (removing troops) will end the threat? I think that’s naive.”

Will it end terrorism? Maybe not. But when you’re digging a hole for yourself, the first step to take is to stop digging. Our belligerent foreign policy, especially the active wars the Middle East, is creating terrorism rather than diminishing it. To state otherwise is to deny reality.

Russ goes on:

“even free trade with them would be considered anathema to them if it introduces their children to that terrible Western culture.”

That’s the wonderful thing about free trade: both sides have to voluntarily agree to the exchange. If Muslims feel as you think they do, they can choose not to trade. The thought that the average Muslim on the street is going to wage a bloody jihad against the West over Britney Spears videos and denim jeans is just plain silly.

What they object to is what any person would rail against: aggressive wars, occupation, the killing of innocent family members and friends, torture, indefinite detention without trial. Stop these policies and the reason for terrorism practically vanishes overnight.

terrymac January 18, 2010 at 1:42 pm

We should organize a few of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZSEf_4F3jk

Walt D. January 18, 2010 at 2:48 pm

New York Mayor, Ed Koch, once said about gun control “it’s OK as long as you don’t expect it to stop criminals getting guns”.
The same is true of airport security and the full body scan – it’s OK as long as you don’t expect it to stop a determined terrorist from smuggling explosives on board a plane. If you want to know how, just ask any prison guard, or watch the Denzil Washington film “Man on Fire” for a graphic demonstration.

Get them bastards January 18, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Since the police have, over and above the fact that they are an occupying force, a disproportionate number of sadists, thieves and power exploiters, they should be profiled as well. There ain’t 1.5 billion of ‘em like them Muslims, but there sure are a lot of them badged gun toting tax feeding neanderthals around my neighborhood. Got to be on the look out.

By the way Russ, just what did all them Muslims do to you? Are they like the po’lice?

austronaut January 18, 2010 at 5:12 pm

it is probobly best to let each individual airline determine its own pre-boarding security. if what the article says is true ( i doubt that it is, but i am not sure)
then this will push true terrorists to more elaborate or out of sight attacks.
rf activated things nearly impossible to detect.

maybe high speed trains will catch on. at least they cant be piloted to areas to cause greater harm if tracks can be suddenly de-electrified.

austronaut January 18, 2010 at 5:20 pm

“The man running Hill & Knowlton’s Washington office was Craig Fuller, one of Bush’s closest friends and inside political advisors. The news media never bothered to examine Fuller’s role until after the war had ended, but if America’s editors had read the PR trade press, they might have noticed this announcement, published in O’Dwyer’s PR Services before the fighting began: “Craig L. Fuller, chief of staff to Bush when he was vice-president, has been on the Kuwaiti account at Hill & Knowlton since the first day…..”

“Three months passed between Nayirah’s testimony and the start of the war. During those months, the story of babies torn from their incubators was repeated over and over again. President Bush told the story. It was recited as fact in Congressional testimony,”

“At the Human Rights Caucus, however, Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait’s Ambassador to the US, who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis’ own investigators later confirmed was false testimony.”
http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

but with politicians like these….terrorists seem freindly.

Robert January 18, 2010 at 6:31 pm

I was going to post, but I think Steve Hogan made some excellent points that I shall simply nod in agreement with.

Russ January 18, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Steve,

I just can’t buy into the Blame America First shit any more. One of al Quaida’s biggest beefs against the US is that there is a military presense in the Arabian peninsula *AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT*! This is not about US imperialism. This is about a crazy interpretation of a religion, basically Islamic imperialism, telling them that they must fight until everyone in the entire world submits to Allah. If you don’t believe that, I think you’ve got your head in the sand just like the Lefties.

Fallon January 18, 2010 at 7:27 pm

Russ,

Which religion does not have crazy and violent stuff in its detail? Christianity is notorious for its multiplicity.

Are you into neoconservatism to the point where you don’t believe that backlash can exist?

Do you find no relation in today’s events to the WWI victors’ selfish carving-up the Mideast
in the name of “democracy” and “self-determination”? Wasn’t that democratic-imperialism?

Glen Smith January 18, 2010 at 7:42 pm

Astronaut,

Problem is that the airlines DO NOT want to be in charge of the security you are talking about. For instance, they are able to shift the costs of passenger security to the public as opposed to having to deal with this cost themselves.

Jake January 18, 2010 at 9:30 pm

>AT THE REQUEST OF THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT*

Russ,

As anyone who frequents this site should know, the desires of the government rarely, if ever, align with those of the people it rules. And as Fallon points out, the US and British governments created just about every state that exists in the middle east after the “great” war and placed in charge of them people who would be obedient to western demands.

To say “why would some Saudi’s resent US troops in their nation when the Saudi government asked us to be there?” Is about like asking “Why would American’s resent a large Chinese or Russian military presence in their nation if the US president (appointed and supported by the Chinese or Russians) asked them to be there?”

It should be obvious. Blame America? You bet, where the US gov. is culpable the US gov. should be blamed. And there’s little doubt they are HIGHLY culpable for their nearly century of interventionism in the middle east, for pretending to stand for freedom and liberty while installing and backing murderous and totalitarian regimes world-wide, and for deceiving people like you into cheering for the home team no matter what color banner they fly.

Kerem Tibuk January 19, 2010 at 12:46 am

Russ,

I will point out the contradictions as I see them.

And the point is, IP socialism and freedom of association are not compatible.

If it is ok for me to look at you with some gadget that makes me see you naked, record your naked image and keep it, it is ok for the government officials to do it.

Unless you think I don’t have a right to see you naked, as the title suggests. Then of course you would have hard time justifying your IP socialism.

Rick January 19, 2010 at 12:53 am

Glen Smith,

You make a good point. “Security Socialism”.

Kerem Tibuk January 19, 2010 at 2:59 am

And regarding Islam and its nature and its connection to terrorism,

I live in Turkey, and while I am an atheist I know what Islam is.

Islam is a Jewish sect just like Christianity but of course has some differences based on historic and cultural circumstances.

Islam is more militarist than Christianity because Islam at the very outset founded a new state (with Mohammed as the emperor while being a prophet at the same time and did what any state does. Conquer all that it can.

Christianity on the other hand was created by Constantin the Great out of many Jesus cults, for the purpose of extending the life of Byzantium thus its was shaped accordingly.

Actually theologically speaking, Islam doesn’t have many problems with the Judaism and the Christianity. Since Islam claims to be the last and newest version, it recognizes all the past prophets including Jesus and has respect for them.

On the other hand Jesus is a fraud according to Jews. Otherwise they would be Christians wouldn’t they. It amuses me to see some very fundamentalist Christian neo-cons having a love affair with Israel.

Also Christians didn’t very much like Jews as the history suggests, at least until Hitler.

The contemporary problem started with founding of Israel and the ascent of the US to the worlds strongest empire right after WW2.

Founding of Israel had problems in itself but the US acting as a juvinile empire contributed. Befor the US, British was the boss but they knew how to run an empire by manipulation, the US didnt.

The US both supported Israel unconditionally and they radicalized Islam against Soviet threat at the same time. Which was an explosive mixture.

So if the US withdrew from the middle east things wouldn’t end all of a sudden. To much damage has been done already. But it would be a good start. If the US can restrain Israel maybe even the Arabs can accept the existence of the Jewish state. But it wouldn’t be in a few years. Thats for sure.

Peter Surda January 19, 2010 at 5:55 am

@Kerem
> If it is ok for me to look at you with some gadget that
> makes me see you naked, record your naked image
> and keep it, it is ok for the government officials to do
> it.
The issue is not in the looking, but in compulsion. The government forces you to undergo the checks before you go on a flight. It is no business of government to restrict the contents of peoples’ contracts.

I find it regrettable, that instead of addressing the holes in your theory, you limit yourself to random jabs at anything that involves dissatisfied people.

David K. Meller January 19, 2010 at 12:15 pm

There were a few posts here advocating a continued government presence on the grounds that anyone who objected was somehow sympathetic to “terrorists”.

That assertion is beginning to stink like week old fish in July!

For every so-called “terrorist” plot foiled by the goofs and thugs of Homeland Security, the peace of mind, personal privacy and property of non-”terrorists”–the vast majority of passangers–is shamefully violated!

I am tired of being lied to, I am tired of having commercial air travel turned into a nightmare, and I am tired of being insulted by being told by the jackasses responsible that I am somehow being “protected”.

Don’t be so good to me! I would gladly abolish homeland security, return the airlines and airports to private security, withdraw our armed forces out of the mideast, and take my chances. People who are still afraid to fly would probably be afraid in any event, even if terrorism never existed, and should devote time to personal therapy to overcome their personal anxieties.

wishing everyone…
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K.Meller

Matt Wing January 20, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Glen Smith

“Problem is that the airlines DO NOT want to be in charge of the security you are talking about. For instance, they are able to shift the costs of passenger security to the public as opposed to having to deal with this cost themselves.”

You’re right, but so what. Sure they would rather have the public cover the cost; and banks would rather not take responsibility for making bad loans, but that doesn’t mean government should cover the losses.

Alpheus July 1, 2010 at 12:37 pm

@Kerem:

When I spend my toil and labor to come up with a new idea, and even risk capital to put that idea into production, shouldn’t that idea be mine? Isn’t this the basis for private property, whether it be improving land (homesteading) or gathering acorns and deer (hunting and gathering)?

Now, why should I be denied my idea, even if without my knowledge, someone else came up with the idea hundreds of miles away, and three years ago obtained a patent for it?

It is not uncommon for people to develop the same idea independently, at around the same time. And, considering that there are literally millions of patents, many of which are quite silly and aren’t worth the paper they were printed on, why should I be expected to waste my time for a patent search?

The thing about ideas is that they exist, and are as real as you or me. They are there to be discovered by anyone who is willing to put the time and effort to discover them, and to find a use for them.

Finally, if I put the time and effort in understanding an idea, even if I have a copy of that idea before me, shouldn’t I be free to make use of that time and effort as I see fit?

It is you, Kerem Tibut, who is the IP Socialist, because you desire to take this property from others, to give to the State-declaced “Patent-Holder”, by use of State Force.

james e fraser July 1, 2010 at 1:30 pm

When I spend my toil and labor to come up with a new idea, and even risk capital to put that idea into production, shouldn’t that idea be mine? Isn’t this the basis for private property, whether it be improving land (homesteading) or gathering acorns and deer (hunting and gathering)?

Now, why should I be denied my idea,…….

has the idea been denied or dispersed?? could you not solicit business as a cnsultant or in r and d even when teh ideaq you come up with makes it way to others for them to integrate as they see fit??

Alpheus July 1, 2010 at 2:05 pm

I think you mis-undarstand me: patents interfere with the dispersal of ideas, or the use of ideas independently discovered.

The use of my idea is denied to me if someone can wave a patent in my face and say “Stop using it!” When this happens, I would not even be able to solicit business as a consultant, although R and D may be possible in the cases where I could come up with a “workaround” for the patented idea.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: