Once Again, Ron Paul Has America's Back

FXTrading:

Anthony .:

While I want to hate the TSA, I know the second something happens on a plane all the people who have pissed and moaned the loudest will condemn the TSA for not being stringent enough.

The USA Today had a poll. 85% of the public approve of the scanners. 15% do not. In America a loud minority will always overrule a quiet majority. Those 15% are the people who bitched and moans for more security when 9/11 happened.

You either live with inconvenience or accept the risk.

I'm all for coming up with solutions instead of bitching and moaning. So I have an idea, airlines have to use their own private security to inspect passengers. This generates competition among airlines as well as makes them liable for anything that may happen on one of their planes. I like this because:

• It is probably much more cost effective than the TSA
• Airlines have an incentive to not have their planes blown to pieces by a shoe bomber, both for reasons of liability, public image, and lost cash flow/higher insurance cost from the events
• If passengers do not like the security measures of a certain airline when they inspect passengers, they can choose another airline, generating competition for better service (something that I have felt is missing from a number of personal stories)
• It is proven that TSA agents cannot find bombs, guns, knives, etc in training runs, even when they know the date, person, and whereabouts of the weapon, making me question whether we are actually safer as opposed to feeling safer.

Thoughts?

This sounds to me like the best way to split the difference. We put airlines in charge of any damage caused by bombed planes (include ground damage, etc.). We let the free market solve this problem.

Mad Max types who don't give a shit report to Cowboy Airways

Scared soccer moms report to Anal Probe Express