Diagree with LRC about TSA porno scanners

Miscellaneous Current Events
,
1

I’ve been reading with interest the LRC columns and blog entries regarding the porno scanners. While I, too, refuse to subject myself to such grossly humiliating invasion, it seems that several of the LRC writers hold mixed and/or contradictory premises.

Either the airlines are private companies who are themselves victims of TSA rulings, or the airlines are quasi-private agencies subsidized by and complicit with the governmental rulings.

In the first case, it does not make sense to punish private companies who, in order to continue to provide any air service at all, are forced to obey the privacy-invasion laws. Yet Kathryn Muratore is doing just that (see here, here, and her new blog here for more background). In short, she purchased tickets to visit relatives across the country before she was aware that the TSA scanners would be introduced at the airport from which she was departing. When she found out about the scanners, she expected US Airways to either refund her ticket or to pay for a rental car so she could drive to a non-scanner airport and take a connecting flight. If airlines are private entities that are forced to obey the TSA rulings, then a ticket refund is a double-assault against the company.

She takes it a step further by expecting Orbitz, the third party agency from whom she ordered the tickets, to provide the refund. Orbitz has nothing to do with the TSA rulings; Orbitz is the “wrong tree” upon whom to express the grievances.

Then Muratore writes,

“Because of [my husband’s] work schedule, he cannot commit to any of the alternative travel arrangements that I am considering. That is why, if I don’t get a refund, I want to be on the same flight… with him.”

Not only does she demanding an alternative flight, but she expects the alternative flight to be the same one that her husband is taking. Yet her original flight was separate from his, so why does it matter if her alternative flight is separate from his? Travel companies are in the business of selling tickets for airline flights, not in the business of coordinating family schedules.

Arthur M.M. Krolman further extends this punishment of a private company unrelated to the airline. As most families get to Disney World by flying, he writes to Disney,

“Now that you are aware that children must submit to nude photography or inspection of private parts in order to enjoy the Disney experience (and on the way home), your silence on this issue may be seen by many as passive agreement with this new pathway to your business…”

Does Dunkin Donuts passively agree with brute force because they serve food to policemen? Does Toys ‘R Us passively agree with public education because they sell toys to public school kids? Does Amazon passively agree to Marxism because they sell books on the philosophy? If Mr. Krolman is consistent, he will have to answer “yes” to these questions, in which case he will be unable to participate in society. Because our economy is mixed rather than free, I can think of no business that is entirely morally clear. Is Krolman willing to make the decision to leave society and live in a cave? To the extent that he is not, then, by his own admission, he is guilty of supporting government intrusion.

Disney responded to his letter, indicating that, “We don’t regulate what the airport rules are regarding transportation security administration.”

Krolman writes a second letter,

“My children, like thousands of others, are regularly enticed by Walt Disney Company advertising to request a trip to Walt Disney World. Other companies, like McDonald’s for example, advertise to children too. Ronald McDonald, Playland and Happy Meals are enticing devices to get kids to plead with their parents to pay a visit to McDonald’s. But unlike the Walt Disney Company, McDonald’s Corporation does not solicit children to go to their business in full knowledge that they will be surprised with a dose of ionizing radiation and inspection of their private parts on the way. … Bad for business or not, and regardless of your power to regulate the United States government, please accept this letter as my request that you cease advertising to my children about visiting Disney World with no warning of the ionizing radiation and gross indecency they must expect on the way to your business at the airport.”

To be consistent, he will also have to assert that McDonald’s needs to warn kids about trans fats, video game packages need to warn kids about seizures, and cigarette packages need to carry a lung cancer warning. LRC ought to be ashamed for posting this drivel.

Both Muratore and Krolman hold that some aspect of the first premise is true. By appealing to the companies’ profit margins, they indicate their belief that the airlines are private industries that are concerned with staying in business.

Now, suppose that premise is not true. Rather, airlines and the travel industry are government-supported entities that benefit from privacy intrusions. Paradoxically, Muratore and Krolman also seem to believe this premise, as indicated by other parts of their letters. In her second letter to US Airways, Muratore writes,

“Don’t tell me that this is not your fault: you are, by definition, complicit in the TSA actions. The airline industry has not stood up for your customers in decades by allowing warrantless bag searches, the frisking of passengers with medical devices, as well as the more recent humiliations and inconveniences of airline travel in the last decade.”

I find it confusing that she acknowledges these repeated invasions, yet admits to subjecting herself to them by flying in recent years. If she were truly against fascist industry, as libertarians and/or anarchists allegedly are, it is unusual to become alarmed only now, only once the body scans are in place. All ye who bemoan the porno scanners, yet have continued to fly for the last 10 years—despite having to take off your shoes, despite having to throw away your water and lotion and scissors, despite being subjected to massive delays and exorbitant taxes and fees—it is through your continued financial contributions to the airlines, and therefore through your most grievous fault, that the privacy invasions and terrible service have escalated to the level of porno scanners. The time to boycott was years ago.

Another puzzling statement from Muratore’s second letter to US Airways is this: “… I was in tears earlier today as I contemplated the corner that the airline industry has backed me into.” If one admits that airlines are part and parcel with the government and that this is a bad thing, how can one in good conscience simultaneously act like a government collectivist by believing one is entitled to fly? In reality, the airline industry has not “backed” anyone into any corners. Flying is not a right, and we are not owed a flight just because an airline exists. I do not believe it is rational to mourn the loss of the ability to fly, when flying is not an entitlement in the first place.

So my appeal to LRC and Mises writers and readers is this:

Do you believe that the airlines are private companies, and are hapless victims of TSA policies? If so, it is morally appropriate for you to not fly in order to avoid the scanners. However, be aware that you are harming an innocent company by doing so.

Do you believe that the airlines are fascist companies, who are willing participants in the TSA scanner policy? If so, why have you continued flying for the last 10+ years, why do you eat agribusiness food, why do you have your money in banks that received bailouts, why do you buy cars from Chrysler and GM who received bailouts? It seems rather unprincipled to support these companies for so long despite the knowledge that they are part of the fascist system, and only to begin to complain once you are directly inconvenienced.

2

I agree it does seem hypocritical. Don’t the larger businesses have lobbying power, though? If enough pressure is brought on them, couldn’t it result in some political action? I agree it seems like the pressure is being brought to the wrong party, and unjustly, but what other methods would you suggest in a fasco-corporatist society? Political action at the individual level seems to have little, to no effect.

I must also strongly agree that it does seem morally inconsistent. I am very interested in alternatives, and having little time to ponder solutions, I leave it to the wise interwebs to provide brain food. :slight_smile:

Great post, and very thought provoking.

Cheers,

andy

3

You have framed this question inescapably–do you drink soft drinks that contain corn syrup that is heavily subsidized by the government? Then you must support the “fascist” government policies that cause it.

So you find it repugnant that someone would “harm” an innocent company to avoid governmental intrusions (on the company or yourself)? Well in a way, I do too, but I think most people [here] agree that the “right” thing to do is remove the impediment or intrusion, not create a false moral dilemma.

4

Your points are, as I understand them:

  1. Why punish an innocent bystander, the private companies, for the govt’s atrocities?

We are not “punishing” anyone. They have no “right” to our continued patronage. The money in our wallet is ours, to do with as we see fit. And we see fit to stop flying because of those atrocities. Of course, we hope the airlines will realize this and, for the best possible motives, [to please us and get our business], they will do their best to turn off the pornoscan. We are not sure, but we think maybe the govt will listen to them more than they lisen to us. It’s worth a try. We have nothing to lose.

  1. How ridiculous of them to ask anyone for a refund.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a refund. If they wish to give us another flight instead, there is nothing wrong with stating our preferences for that other flight.

Just as if one buys a bottle of wine and finds water inside instead, he is being very reasonable asking for a refund, so too if one buys a plane ticket and gets a body grope and a pornoscan as a free “gift”, it seems reasonable to the authors of the articles you quoted that a refund is in order. You may disagree, but I do not think their position is untenable.

  1. Enduring govt intrusion [Dunkin Donuts etc] is the same as supporting it.

We cannot fight every battle. There is only so much time and energy a person has. So we endure, form lack of ability to fight 24/7, what we can. But we reserve the right to engage in battle against the invader when we wish. In reality, this means when it is just to outrageous to bear any longer. like pornoscans of our little children.

  1. By the logic of the articles at LRC, McDonald’s needs to warn kids about trans fats, video game packages need to warn kids about seizures, and cigarette packages need to carry a lung cancer warning. LRC ought to be ashamed for posting this drivel.

The author did not say they “need” to do anything. He made a request. "…please accept this letter as my request…" He can request or not request whatever he wants. That’s how freedom works. And why is it drivel to make a request? As to why he might want to request this and not that, that depends on his subjective feelings about how important the matter is to him, comapred to the energy required to write letters about it.

  1. Saying the airlines should have stood up for their clients is assuming they are co-conspirators.

Oh, I don’t know. It just means they thought it’s no skin off their back, that the customers will endure it like sheep, so why make trouble with the powerful govt that can harass a business in so many painfull ways. And the authoress of the article is saying that she expected the airlines to anticipate that the customers will not like it. Granted, this may be going a bit far. The airline can do what it wants, and made its own calculations. Certainly when they start losing more money from lost flights than they expect to save by not making waves, things will change.

  1. Why do you object to the porno scans, but were silent about the previous indignities?

Having read point 3, you are now enlightened about this as well.

  1. The authoress wrote “… I was in tears earlier today as I contemplated the corner that the airline industry has backed me into.” This means she assumes she has a right to fly, and she certainly doesn’t, the pampered little girl.

You can do better than that. Say a tree collapses and totals ones car. One may, if of the tender sex, shed tears as one contemplates the corner one is backed into by the loss of ones car. Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Sheesh.

  1. It is not rational to mourn something you are not entitled to.

So all those mourners at funerals feel entitled to haveing parents, children, friends, loved ones, even dogs? Come come.

There is a deeper flaw here as well. Mourning is a feeling. Feelings are not guided by rationality. For example. rationally you should be feeling eternal gratitude to me for correcting your public errors. But many a person of weaker spirit would feel rage, humiliation, or who knows what other irrational feelings.

That is just the way it is. We feel what we feel, rational or not.

The heart has its reasons that reason cannot grasp.

5

Actually European air companies have complained about “excessive” and “ineffective” security measures for years now. They haven’t been successful (and as Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary said the “ink cartdridge bomb” will only make things worse) but at least they have tried raising their voices and try to be sympathetic with their long-suffering customers. Have US companies tried doing the same? I don’t think so. They are silent. They look like the old, disillusioned cop who sees his colleagues beat up someone for no reason and turn the other way, not because he doesn’t care but because he’s afraid to lose his job and his pension.

“It seems rather unprincipled to support these companies for so long despite the knowledge that they are part of the fascist system, and only to begin to complain once you are directly inconvenienced.”

Believe me, I try to do my bit to inconvenience people using government muscle to squeeze money out of me as much as possible. It may be not much and I cannot be ever on the lookout but I do my best to be as annoying as possible.

6

I think quasi-private is a more accurate reflection of reality. However, it’s not like anything else other then quasi-private institutions can thrive in our political system.

Here’s the problem with the message often heard at LRC. They are not making a distinct argument that sets them apart from the typical misguided statists who are also civil liberty advocates.

The porn scanners, the groping, etc… are all very intrusive and humiliating but they are not violations of individual/property rights in themselves. I have very little doubt that these sort of degrading and humiliating techniques would be absolutely rejected by the free market, however, they can thrive in a free market if consumers would happen to demand them. It is the coercive monopoly of the TSA that allows them to treat us like herd of sheep. That is the source of the humiliation and violations in our rights. Not the scanners and groping per se.

7

There are some interesting comments here, so thank you to all who have responded.

notP, unfortunately I haven’t come up with any better alternatives than leaving society, being self-sufficient, and living entirely off the grid. This would be a miserable existence, I think, and I have not made that leap (yet). It’s something I struggle with daily, though, because there are no moral options. Either participate in society and pay taxes that support wars and bailouts, or leave society and die in a few years. I think the intention of the letter-writers and boycotters is to use corporations as the means to bring about political change, as you say… but in a sense that’s still a form of participating in the political process. Are boycotts leading to lobbying leading to political change more effective than voting leading to political change? I don’t know. (A scary aside is that in US Airway’s response letter, they indicate that many people like the scanners and the added “security” the scanners provide.)

Hopefully someone else will have insights for alternative solutions.

BiPolarMoment, yes, by drinking HFCS you are supporting the government corn subsidies. Aside from the health trouble HFCS causes, this is another reason I do not eat HFCS (or any food made by a large company, for that matter).

I’m not sure what you mean by creating a false moral dilemma, but if I have made an error I’d like to know so I can correct it. Could you please explain that in more detail?

Smiling Dave,

  1. I absolutely agree that companies have no right to our patronage. What I was trying to express is that, if airlines are truly private companies, they are not responsible for the TSA decision. Therefore, it seems that the TSA rather than the airline companies should be the target of any letter-writing campaigns.

  2. Asking for a refund is okay when the company who produces a product or provides a service fails to deliver the product or service as advertised (such as you show in the watery wine example). In cases where the purchaser decides to back out of the contract, a refund is not in order. If a professor skips class, the students do get a tuition refund. If a student chooses to skip class, he doesn’t get his tuition back. If a music artist cancels a concert, the fans do get a refund. If I buy a concert ticket but don’t go to the concert, I don’t get a refund. In our example, the airline is not backing out of its end of the deal: it is still providing a flight from one city to another. The customer is the one who has changed her mind. No refund.

  3. Even if I conceded that a refund would be okay here, that doesn’t seem to be the primary goal of the letter-writers who made their letters public. Writes Muratore, “… I will be making this letter public, and, your response or lack of response will be public as well. I will state the obvious intention here – to humiliate the travel industry…”

If this were just a request for a refund, as you say, the author would not need to post the company’s response publicly, nor openly state her intention to “humiliate.”

  1. Being of the “tender sex,” as you call it, I admit that I might cry if a fallen tree destroyed my car. But it’s not that the tree has intentionally “backed me into a corner,” so I would not make such an accusation against the tree.

  2. Although I hesitate to say I am an Objectivist because I don’t want my responses to be interpreted as the official Objectivist position on the TSA scanners, I will say that my understanding of philosophy and psychology is strongly influenced by Objectivist principles. I deny that emotions are irrational. Therefore, I rightfully feel gratitude for your thorough response, rather than rage when my potential errors of thought are publicly addressed. If I am wrong about something, I am not humiliated; I correct the error. The purpose of a discussion entry is to have a discussion, which necessarily involves debate.

8

Dear Atlas Rises,

TY for your rational and polite reply. OK, kid gloves here for the tender sex:

  1. Say a restaurant has a loud homeless smelly drunk parked right in front of their property, but not on their property, all the time. They certainly did not bring him there, they are not to blame at all. The customers tell the owners they are not going to patronize the place until that drunk is gone. They are out to have a pleasant evening, and they just won’t enjoy themselves with that odor and noise and reminder of poverty right there in their face.

Would you respond with the same vigor and arguments as you did to the pornoscan protests?

  1. I agree with the broad outline of your essay on refunds. But say a student skips class because there is no roof and it’s raining right into the classroom. Or if the fans come to the concert and find that admission is only granted to those who will strip naked for the duration of the concert. Or that they and their children will be subjected to a grope and a pornoscan before they are admitted.

The common denominator is that there is an implied understanding that is part of every deal. Lectures with no rain. Concerts with all my clothes on, thank you very much. Airplane rides with no gropes and ogling of my privates.

  1. If humiliating the industry is her goal, by publicising matters of public record, is that not her right? What’s the problem exactly?

  2. "back somebody into a corner

to force someone into a bad situation The company backed its workers into a corner by hiring replacements during the strike.
Usage notes: sometimes used in the form get backed into a corner: When that team gets backed into a corner, they aren’t afraid to fight their way out."

That’s from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/back+into+a+corner, citing the Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms.

I think we can agree that in the example they used, the team did not feel winning the game was their right that they are entitled to.

Did she say “intentionally” in her article?

  1. This is the most surprising part of your lovely response. So people who fall in love always do so for rational reasons? What about suicide bombers? How rational are they? People do irrational things all the time. Why else do they do them, if not because of irrational emotions overpowering them?
9

BiPolarMoment, yes, by drinking HFCS you are supporting the government corn subsidies. Aside from the health trouble HFCS causes, this is another reason I do not eat HFCS (or any food made by a large company, for that matter).

I’m not sure what you mean by creating a false moral dilemma, but if I have made an error I’d like to know so I can correct it. Could you please explain that in more detail?

You eat no food by large companies; do you think the sources or the employees your food comes from are absent of government regulations (that for sake or argument I presume you do not agree with)? You have already admitted that the support is escalated more than one degree of seperation (Consumer<-Coca Cola<-HFCS Supplier), if you apply this to your food source are you still absent of endorsement?

Perhaps “false” is the wrong intention on my part; it’s more of an issue of resigning oneself to suicide or making for the stars; I challenge you to produce an example of a common consumable that is not in some [even minute] way affected by government intervention. E.g. Even attempting to subsistence farm would require you to a) pay property tax (endorsing taxation) b) unless manufacturing your own tools you are purchasing implements that were manufacturered by a plant likely affected by OSHA (endorsing OSHA). By purchasing any processed food you endorse the FDA, etc.

Why stop at the TSA–by flying you also endorse the FAA and likely many other government organizations. It is effectively inescapable to “endorse” some agency by your moral code. Furthermore, it requires the consumer to pretty much omniscient which is a nice but impossible ideal.

BTW, I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but the ridiculousness of how deep this rabbit hole could go has me staring at the screen in disbelief.

10

Smiling Dave,

  1. I’m not sure the example of the restaurant owner and the nearby drunk is applicable. That is an issue of property rights. Based on property law, I don’t think the restaurant owner could legally or morally force anything on property he does not own. If any property rights people have input on this, I’d be interesting in hearing it. Likewise, if I think of anything in the coming hours, I will update again.

  2. In the examples you give, the students or concert-goers had an expectation of some level of service and civility. The airlines have been harassing, demeaning, and humiliating customers for years. While a history of abuse does not make the abuse proper, these intrusions should be no suprise to anyone who has flown in the last 10 years. There is no “implied understanding” of proper treatment anymore. I don’t see the scanners as really any worse than any of the other invasions implemented after 9-11, so I don’t understand why there is all the outrage now, and not 10 years ago. People put up with this mistreatment for years, so it’s a natural progression that the TSA and/or airlines would just go one step further now.

  3. This was not the original topic. In short, you first said the auther had a right to request a refund. I responded that even if I conceded she had a right to a refund, seeking a refund wasn’t her main goal, humiliating the airlines was. Now you respond that humiliating the airlines is her right. Okay.

  4. I do not agree that the airlines have backed the writer into a corner.

The combination of statements: “I contemplated the corner that the airline industry has backed me into” and “Don’t tell me that this is not your fault: you are, by definition, complicit in the TSA actions,” taken together, imply assignment of intention/purpose/fault/responsibility/ something along those lines.

  1. I should have said emotions are not inherently irrational. Emotions are not tools of cognition—in other words, one needs to employ reason (not feelings) when making decisions. However, in an integrated person, emotions are indeed rational responses to one’s assessment of reality. Happiness and pride are rational responses to achieving goals; anger and frustration are rational responses to being prevented from obtaining values; sadness is a rational response to loss of a value. Emotions need not be irrational (disconnected for reality). There is a term I would use for people whose emotions do not correspond to the reality of the situation: confused (or, on a bad day, deranged).

Anyway, this response wasn’t meant to sound curt; I am short on time, which leads to a more abrupt writing style. I do appreciate your discussion.

11

BiPolar,

This is a dilemma I briefly alluded to above: living in a mixed economy makes it impossible to be fully moral. By participating in any aspect of this current society, we are funding our destroyers. It is something I struggle with every day.

12

Okay, I can’t say we really disagree then. I do try to support those things I wish to persist regardless of if they abide by the regulations imposed upon them–it seems counterproductive to only support vendors that perfectly share your view simply because there are not many (or perhaps any) of them and they could likewise find themselves in the same struggle you do.

P.S. it was an intentional pun but I find it funny that people identify my forum name with “Bipolar” rather than “Polarmoment”–I am much more affiliated with the latter.

13

Dave & BiPo have covered most of the bases so I won’t add much.

You seem to make some false dilemmas (either/or fallacies). Other than “A or not A” type statements, there are almost always more than two choices. Stating the author is either/or also makes false assumptions of their beliefs/motives.

Without rereading the articles, I believe she stated the porn scanners were installed after she purchased her ticket. Thus, there is an aspect of buying one item but receiving another.

I believe one author stated the uselessness of petitioning the TSA or other govt agency. Again, not rereading the two articles, I also believe one of the authors discussed that many have decided not to fly since 2001 and that the airline industry is not doing well financially. The author stated we should let the airlines know of our decisions. Unjust laws are meant to be broken. Reminding the airlines of this, and the fact that their refusal to do so will lower their profits, is no more partaking in the political process than trying to live peacefully with others.

14

Yup.

Welcome to the community.

15

We aren’t extratemporal gods. We have to pick our battles. I find supporting a business that gives special favors to cops bearable, because I like their coffee too, and I will not allow the incidence of their relationship with the state, which is common to nearly all businesses in the world, to inhibit me from acting on the choice to enjoy it. I find supporting a business that embraces the legalized bullying of the TSA with hardly a word of protest intolerable. I cannot boycott ALL businesses that support the state, because then I would starve to death. My stance against the state is not compromised by my failure to do everything so long as I do what I can. Encouraging people to find ways of doing business that circumvent the state is one of those things. Boycotting the tyranny-farming airline industry is another. Depriving myself of all the benefits of civilized society that the state has forced itself onto as a parasite is not, because it is not conducive to my goal of living a freer life.