Market Competition for Security Measures

[Yeoh Yiu]

Tim May <tcmay at got.net> writes:

> This debate is one of my favorites: security and the role of market
> forces. I regret not having the time/energy to tighten and polish this
> essay below. Some paragraphs are almost note-like. If you can handle
> John Young, you can handle this.
...

> (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.)

In the current environment in the USA, that would be, 'XYZ airlines
denied use of US airspace' or 'denied use of anywhere within range of
US airspace.'

The problem with torts to address danger to others is that 
the potential value of the torts for events such as 0911
is so huge, nobody could afford to pay the damages.   

Alas, pre-emptive action to prevent such threats seems resonable.
This resobning should not be used to justify stupid, inept and counter
-productive pre-emtive action, but of course it will.

  "Despite all the rhetoric and mobilization of the police and military,
   the only real act of successfully opposing terrorists occurred when
   civilians took matters into their own hands on the fourth hijacked
   plane on September 11. While our government has failed miserably to
   protect anyone, this foiling of a fourth attack, apparently targeted
   against the White House, shows that our fellow citizens are still our
   best defense." -  http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/10/15/18035.html


[ Various good points about competition and diversity of
  security measures deleted.]

YY