Lucky Dice Airlines

rubenfm asks, “If they want to get us, they’re still going to get us, but not through sneakers and mouthwash. How long are we going to line up like sheep to go through this process, and will ever it return to how it was? Can’t there be a middle ground?”

The solution is to dissolve the TSA. Airlines which choose to offer security will offer it, and customers can pick. After all, “We know you have a choice when traveling…”

The TSA doesn’t care if you’re unhappy - those schlubs’ jobs don’t depend on customer feedback, the way that employees of businesses do. So if security was privatized, you might get better treatment.

…maybe! It’s a big “maybe” because the airlines themselves are heavily subsidized, and, just as humans who receieve welfare become incredibly lazy, businesses which receieve welfare don’t really care about your satisfaction. This is why air travel is such a modern nightmare. There is nothing inherent to bussing humans through the sky that requires the entire ordeal to be Hell on Earth. Think of it as a preview of America’s socialist/fascist future if government keeps expanding.

— jakoblodwick

Disagree here. You can’t have some airlines that are permitted to offer no or lax security or safety standards because that airline’s planes will be crashing into my city. 

Though not perfect, I do think that current airline security generally prevents hijackers. At least significantly compared to what an airline with no security would do.

Thinking about Government

… 

These questions presume that ending laws that force altruism (ie, ending welfare) would equate to laws against helping people.

I think the results would be quite different. People who currently help the downtrodden would continue to help the downtrodden. In addition, some wealthy people, relieved of the obligation to pay taxes, would take charity a little more seriously because they could create their own innovative, entrepreneurial foundations.

… 

— jakoblodwick

Good luck convincing people that rich folks are dying to give their money away. It just doesn’t ring true for me. See the original post for the rest of Jake’s argument.

— dalasverdugo

…

ME TIME:

I agree with Dalas with regards to Jake’s post on government and privatized charity. I don’t believe that people would be as giving if it weren’t mandated by the government and I don’t know of a society where this has actually worked succesfully.

Government is useful for enacting policies that virtually everybody wants but wouldn’t become a reality if everyone had the option of individually contributing to, knowing that their neighbors might not.

For example, right now I give 45% of my income to the government (I’d like it to be lower, of course). Do you think I’d give even half that if the choice was left up to me? Nope. 

When all is said and done, I feel an efficiently run government is more useful than a bunch of privatized organizations because of the above reason. Though right now we have neither.
 

Looking For A Place To Live?

I’m moving out of my apartment in a month or so. I live with three really great people in Tribeca and the apartment is amazing.

If you know anybody who is looking for a place to live ($2500/mo), shoot me an email. ricky at collegehumor.