The terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day was an eye opening event for most Americans; a stark reminder that terrorists are still bent on attacking America’s transportation infrastructure. Despite the current political spin, the government’s failure to stop Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab before he boarded his plane was a near fatal display of incompetence. With this stunning failure fresh in our mind, perhaps it’s time we consider alternatives to having the Transportation Security Authority running airport security.
Any discussion must begin with the admission that the balance between freedom and security is a delicate one. Since the 9/11 attacks, this balance has been the primary cause of the conflict between civil libertarians and security pragmatists. While the two sides might advocate positions that appear not to have a practical middle ground on which to settle, one does in fact exist and that is the privatization of airline security.
Privatizing security is not a revolutionary idea as the US government has been doing it for years. The government has, for example, contracted out security for high value western politicians as well as high ranking military personnel in warzones around the world. While Blackwater might not be a model for airlines, allowing them to contract their own security on a company by company basis has considerable benefits.
The most common point of contention when it comes to airline security comes from the objection to racial profiling and discrimination on the part of the TSA. Organizations like Council on American Islamic Relations have already declared that new TSA rules enacted since the Christmas attack amount to profiling. Litigious organizations like CAIR will almost certainly bring their objections to the courtroom.
While keeping civil liberties intact is a goal that we all share, to deny that the threat we currently face is primarily from Muslim fundamentalists of Arab origin is tantamount to burying our heads in the sand. The argument can be made though that the slippery slope that profiling causes is not in the act of discrimination itself; rather it’s in allowing a government agency like the TSA to engage in discriminatory practices. A solution to this perceived problem is to empower the consumer to discriminate between various methods and standards of security.
The consumer should be free to choose an airline that makes him comfortable. If, for example, American Airlines decides to impose restrictions on travel on their planes by foreign nationals from a certain region, Delta will be free to pick up their slack. The consumer in turn would be allowed to discriminate by choosing to take his dollar elsewhere if he doesn’t approve of a certain airlines methods.
In addition to the sticky issue of racial profiling on commercial airlines, privacy issues have arisen as a concern as well. Most recently, this concern has taken the form of the use of certain body scanners that leave little to the imagination (a plus considering that the 9/11 commission declared a failure in imagination to be amongst our greatest weaknesses in identifying attacks) In the free market, the customer has a much different expectation when it comes to privacy. For example, retail stores can, within reason, legally monitor dressing rooms and other sensitive areas. Airlines would be treated no differently. Whereas retailers are given leeway in order to guarantee against theft, airlines are given the same leeway to guarantee the safety of their customers.
Once again, this would empower the customer. If he felt that a particular airlines method were more intrusive than he could bear, he would be free to move on to another.
Finally, privatization of airline security would reduce the red tape that comes standard with nearly all government agencies. Unfortunately for flyers, the TSA is not immune to being bogged down in bureaucracy and politics. When the system fails, accountability is usually lost in the ensuing orgy of politically motivated finger pointing. If left to the private sector, culpability for breaches in security would be considerably easier to determine and necessary steps to correct inefficiencies could be implemented in a more fluid and timely manner.
Some might argue that Airline security is too important an issue to allow it to be handled by the market. To the contrary, the reality might be that it’s too important to leave to the government. In security, as in most issues, the free market provides a vastly superior option than anything the government can offer.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Airline Security: The Private Option | Parcbench -- Topsy.com
Pingback: Airline Security: The Private Option | Parcbench Airline by about
Pingback: Airline Security: The Private Option | Parcbench Private Me