From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 9:35 PM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - Airport Privatization 

(A hot topic lately is the federalization of airport sercurity.
Libertarians and opponents of government involvement point out the
government track record in 'federalizing' things, which has generally made
them more expensive and less effecient, it is likely that airport security
would be no different, and the quality of security protection will be
obfuscated by the superficial appearance of increase in security.
    A primary point that I feel has been overlooked is that the Airline
industry is not held liable for its actions, it failed at a service it was
supposed to provide (security) and instead of being made responsible for
thier actions i.e. going out of business and allowing other entrepenaurs
guarantee the provisions of these securities in different ways, the
government instead foots the bill for the failure of the airline.  This
paves the way for more industries to fail in there own way if they feel the
government will 'bail them out'.  The money being lost by the airline
industry right now is mainly because people do not want to fly, and people
generally dont want to fly because they do not feel safe doing so.  So,
naturally, the first airline which can reasonable ensure security will be
the first to regain a strong foothold in the industry.  Yet the government
has decided that providing the security for the airports is the best answer
while paying for the companies directly responsible for this to stay in
business.  Companies should always be held responsible for thier actions,
especially if it is a matter of national security.  The government bailout
of the airline industries will make airline prices or taxes higher (the
later of which would make the least common users of airlines, the lower and
middle economic brackets, foot the bill for the upper income earners who fly
more frequently) make lines longer at the airport with more rediculous and
unecceasry searches and boarding refusals while not making our airlines or
airports any safer.
	I am of the opinion that private industries should be allowed to compete to
provide the safety needed, not overpaid underqualified government workers.
Instead, if regulation is necessary, then the government should provide a
force that will periodically verify the safety of the companies providing
security for the aiports, a simple bi monthly test of the security check
points would likely suffice.  Federalizing security at the airports would
also have a likely drawback in the sense that every airports security
systems will be identical and a matter of public record, which means they
would be easier to circumvent.
	This article is about a columnists experience at the airport with the new
'heightened' security measures and his opinions on the matter.  - Mike)

Airport privatization
----------
Ludwig von Mises Institute
by Mark Thornton
   "Only with private airports and completely unregulated security
   can terrorists be presented with an efficient, unknown, and
   ever-changing security challenge. Every airport would be
   different. Every airline would be different. Security measures
   could be changed regularly (and irregularly, for that matter)."
   (10/24/01)

from - http://www.free-market.net/rd/504481100.html

Airport Privatization

by Mark Thornton

[Posted October 23, 2001]

I was making my first airplane trip after the September 11 attack, and boy
was I afraid. I was headed right up through Terrorist Alley-from Montgomery,
Alabama, through Memphis, Tennessee, to St. Louis, Missouri, and back again.
Old Bin Laden himself could not have designed such a daredevil
adventure.

The first thing you notice about the new and "improved" airport safety
system is the presence of barricades, police officers, and young soldiers
who are dressed in camouflage uniforms and carrying M-16 machine guns.

These soldiers are the same kids that we don't allow to buy beer and who
listen to music with lyrics like, "I'm a loser and I know I'm going to die."
One of the kids was clearly enjoying his newfound power over the patrons of
the airport, but the other was uncomfortable wearing his weekend warrior
outfit in public and seemed highly relieved when I said hello.

I was there two hours early, as directed, but there were no lines. Security
was less than optimal. The girl at the ticket counter forgot to ask to see
my identification card and had trouble operating the tape dispenser. The
security girls also had trouble with procedures, but it was very early on
Sunday morning, and the team did manage to pull together for a thorough
review, scan, and body-frisking the second time I went through the
checkpoint.

As a matter of fact, I was singled out for the double electronic scan and
body-frisking at every airport. Each time, a little lady (usually less than
five feet tall) would demand that I "spread 'em" while she used her
electronic frisking devise and hands all over my body, even though I had
successfully made it past two electronic scans. I don't know what they were
looking for. I don't look like an Arab; I've never been to the Middle East;
and I've never even seen a copy of the Koran. However, I am six feet four
inches tall, just like Osama and OJ Simpson, so maybe it was my height.

Things soon got worse, because the U.S. attacked Afghanistan. Security
measures were increased (not improved), lines got longer, and passengers
were now told to show up three hours early. Security checkpoints now have a
separate person to check your ticket, scan your identification papers, and
stand there and forcefully demand, "take everything out of your pockets"
over and over again. All of the security girls seem to really enjoy the
newfound importance and power of their jobs.

As I sat in airport after airport, hour after hour, I thought to myself:
this is just like the USSR, without the Russian accent. There was a constant
stream of recorded security warnings over the public address system that
would have been quite unnerving to the general public if someone with a
stern foreign accent had given them.

And then there is the requirement to show your "papers" at every
"checkpoint," including the ticket counter, the security checkpoint, and the
gateway to your plane. I felt like I was in a Kevin Costner movie about the
Soviet Union.

I can also tell you that all this increased security did not improve
security; it made me feel less secure. In fact, I talked to many people
during my trip about the increased airport security, and of those who
mattered (private-sector workers with IQs above 100), everyone felt less
secure because of the increased security!

Several people mentioned that while the security girls were examining pens
and confiscating cigarette lighters, they forgot to check whether some of
the cell phones, cameras, and laptops were actually operational by turning
them on. Other passengers expressed concern about losing sight of their
Rolexes, wallets, and Palm Pilots while being searched, and remarked that
these items easily could have been stolen by someone in the moving crowd.

I returned home only to face the specter of thoroughly federalized airport
security. Does that mean we are going to fire all the current security
force, or are we just going to pay them more at taxpayers' expense? Senator
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-Texas) demands that security be "exactly the same
at every airport in the United States." The senator and her colleagues
apparently don't realize it, but that is exactly what terrorists want.

Terrorists want airport security to be predictable so that they'll know what
they face in the airport and on the plane. Any attempt to regulate or
regiment airport and airplane security, even if it involves such things as
requiring pilots to carry guns, falls directly into the hands of terrorists
and would backfire. Federalized security is knowable and predictable. You
can read about it in the library or on the Internet, and then make plans to
avoid it, or even take advantage of it.

Every federal bureaucracy and $2-plus trillion in taxes each year failed us
on September 11: The world's only "superpower" couldn't even defend its own
command center. Why in the world would anyone think that another layer of
bureaucracy would in any way help the situation?

Only with private airports and completely unregulated security can
terrorists be presented with an efficient, unknown, and ever-changing
security challenge. Every airport would be different. Every airline would be
different. Security measures could be changed regularly (and irregularly,
for that matter).

Terrorists could not make plans, because they would not know what they
faced. Passengers would not be harassed by security girls; they would be
courted with efficient, noninvasive, and courteous  security. They might
also be discriminated against or "profiled," but everyone would be much
safer.

Of course, we must also realize that even if we did completely privatize and
deregulate air travel, terrorist could still succeed, either in the air or
through other means. The only method of truly preventing terrorism is to
take away their motive.

In this case, the terrorists have clearly stated that they want to bring
about an end to American intervention in the Middle East and reinstitute
trade with Iraq. Some people say that this won't make a difference, that
they will still try to destroy us, but since we should do these things
anyway, it is worth a shot.

Mark Thornton, a senior fellow of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at
Columbus State University. Send him MAIL. See his Mises.org Article Archive
or his scholarly pieces in the QJAE, the RAE, and the JLS. A version of this
article originally appeared on Lewrockwell.com.

www.matus1976.com