Market Competition for Security Measures

[Tim May]

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