From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 8:21 PM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - The Value of Government Security

(This is an excellent article that pretty much sums up most of my feelings
on government and security in our nations skies - Mike)

The Value of Government Security
----------
Jacob's Libertarian Press
by Jacob Halbrooks
   "If we don't trust the government to deliver a package
   overnight, why should we trust it to protect our lives?"
    Halbrooks makes a case for privatizing security and
   defense services. (10/01)

from - http://www.free-market.net/rd/902641679.html

The Value of Government Security

The government just doesn't get it. In a reaction to the events of
9/11, politicians and bureaucrats have called for increased
security measures at airports. Since weapons are already illegal
on airplanes, these measures can only consist of more
intimidation and the confiscation of all pointy objects. Although it
might be tempting to support such "increased security," it was
the style of government security that allowed the tragedy to occur
in the first place. This is because government security consists
of disarmament, and anyone who gets through the predictable
procedures is free to impose his will on others. We have seen
the result of government security not only in plane hijackings but
also in school massacres of the past. Government security is
akin to stripping individuals naked, throwing them all in a room
with a serial killer, and then locking the doors behind them. Now
that the latest terrorist threat is anthrax via the Post Office, the
government has reacted with possible plans of irradiating all
mail. If these events are any indication, then the government's
War on Terrorism will be about as successful as its War on
Drugs or its War on Poverty.

Among the government's many functions, security and defense
are perhaps the most sacrosanct. Even many individuals who
are otherwise libertarians hesitate to question the government's
role as protector of the people. But anyone who has ever dealt
with the government can see that it is slow, inefficient, and
produces inferior services. If we don't trust the government to
deliver a package overnight, why should we trust it to protect our
lives? The reason that government is so poor at doing anything
when compared to the free market is rooted in the nature of
government. Government services do not depend on the
voluntary investment and contracts of individuals but instead on
force. Market goods are then transformed into political goods,
subject to the whims not of the individuals who use the service
but to whatever faction holds political power.

Despite the fact that government cannot provide services as well
as the market, politicians push government failures as reason for
further intervention rather than removing government control.
They tell us that the solution for failing schools is more federal
funding. They tell us that with more police power, the War on
Drugs can be won. And now we are told that terrorism can be
vanquished if only we surrender more liberties, wealth, and
power to the government. But just like in the case of public
schooling and drug-related crime, the problem of security will
only be worse if the government takes more control.

Imagine for a minute that the FAA was abolished and that
airports had no set of security procedures forced upon them.
What would happen? The airlines would then respond to what
the customers wanted: what type of security measures, how strict
of security measures, and so on. People would vote with their
wallets according to the security measures they felt appropriate.
Some airlines might allow passengers to carry firearms, some
might only allow airline personnel to do so, and others might use
other means of security altogether. But when instead of allowing
the market to operate, the government forces its own idea of
what security should be, the result is a one-size-fits-all solution
that does not conform to the wishes of the customers or the
airlines. The predictable and often inane measures are good for
terrorists since airlines cannot protect themselves the way they
would like to but only in so far as the government allows them.

The same reasoning applies not just to airplane security but also
to community security and national defense. In many areas of the
country, police are viewed with suspicion and contempt since
they are not answerable to the citizens themselves but instead to
the government. If government policing was abolished, then the
result would be private security companies that have a true
incentive for protecting your property; if they don't you will not pay
them. And if a standing army were abolished, then the United
States government would have much less means to terrorize
other countries and breed the hate for Americans that is now so
pervasive throughout the world. Private defense firms would be
loathe to participate in any fighting since it is so costly and would
only do so when the customers demand it. Not only would private
firms provide the services that the government monopolizes now
more efficiently, but they would also be provided in a morally
correct manner. This is because the market works through
voluntary contract, where no one is forced into doing anything.
Any service the government provides, on the other hand, can
only be funded through the forced extraction of wealth from the
people, a clear violation of individual property rights.

Many individuals have warned against the negative
consequences of government intervention in the past. They have
said over and over again that foreign military and political
intervention lead to enmity and hatred, that central banking
causes the trade cycle, that increased government control results
in inferior products and services, and that the best thing the
government can do is to get out of the way. But again and again
they are ignored. Now that the economy is on a downturn, the
government's military is waging war, and the people fear the next
round of terrorist strikes, the usual voices are arguing what the
government should do to "solve" the country's problems. They
are debating what security procedures the government should
dictate at airports, what military actions the government should
engage in, and what the government should do about the
economy. Some people will never get it.

www.matus1976.com