On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 11:33 AM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:
Largely, I am in agreement. However, in the paragraphs I've quoted below, Tim touches on a counter-argument and dismisses it. I'll like to expand upon that a bit.
I didn't "dismiss" it. In fact, I wrote more about this issue, which I haven't seen brought up by anyone else here, than 95% of all posts to Cypherpunks have in their entire amount of original material!
(There are interesting issues of "danger to others." Friedman the Younger covers this in his recent book on economics. "Law's Order." To wit, XYZ Airlines, with no security procedures, might be denied use of various airports, etc. A standard tort issue. The outcome is not precisely known, but a move toward "market competition for security measures" would flesh out many of these issues and outcomes.)
I think that this "danger to others" issue will lead us right back where we started. It would not simply be an issue of various airports denying use, but also communities denying airspace rights. And you can bet that, in a world where airlines were permitted to have no security procedures, XYZ Airlines would also have to abide by "no-fly zones" set up by the larger, more security-conscious cities, enforceable by SAMs.
I never claimed that a stable end-state is that of some airlines have "no security procedures." Such was not the case before 911, so it is even less likely today. I don't know what the evolution will look like. The ecology of the security measures will probably, if allowed to by regulators, have a few hyper-conscious players like El Al, a few cattle car playes like People Express, and a bunch of players in between. I was not "dismissing" this issue of collateral damage, of tort damage. I said Friedman explores such things in great detail. However, the current system does not allow the positive effects I described. Any airline in the U.S. (or many other countries) which attempted some obvious security measures would face lawsuits by "discriminated against" customers. This is a more pressing problem than some extremely unlikely scenario wherein some carrier adopted a "no security procedures" policy.
There would probably be places in the mid-west that permitted such airlines to operate their services. But the market would surely kill them swiftly if they were denied the ability to fly or land in any popular area. Customers would go elsewhere, not because of the lax security, but because of the limited service offerings.
You are making my point, not arguing against it. I never claimed that a spectrum of security measures would be a stable, or even a short-term, state. May's Law: The longer the essay, the more complaints there are that it was not detailed enough. --Tim May "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau