The whole uproar around the body scanners seems to be centered around the fact that people will see you (and everyone else) nude. I see libertarians pulling the “think of the children” line as a major function of their opposition to the scanners, a tactic they normally deplore when used by their opponents. So what gives? It seems almost paranoid to center your argument around the fear that some fellow in a booth will be able to see them for a few seconds in blue nude. I am sorry that they are so insecure about their own bodies that they have to sink to this level. Child porn? Haha… Give me a break. There are photos in every health book and website with clear pictures of the “stages of development” of the human body. Oh no, prepubescent nipples and genitals! The TSA officer might masturbate to these images! Just like everyone masturbated to the Mr. Manhattan’s blue nudity from Watchmen. Sure, its a possibility that someone might be aroused, but someone could get hot and heavy off just looking at you with clothes on too.
The concerns about radiation dosages might deserve looking into, and the assumed question of choice (you don’t have to fly, but then again the government doesn’t allow competition that might cater to you) might be the best place to start.
I don’t give much sympathy to anyone who pulls the child porn card. Weren’t these same libertarians attacking the state for locking up teens for possession of child pornography for taking photos of themselves and exchanging with whoever? If anything these procedures would make airport security LESS expensive, as each passenger and their luggage could be easily checked. Naturally, this doesn’t prevent normal hijacking, which is purely psychological and requires no actual weapon, merely the threat of one will do.
Ah… it’s pointing out the statist hypocrisy. It’s proclaiming “by even your own standards (think of the children)” it’s full of fail.
"Paranoia in this connection is not a fear of others, but a baseless fear of others. What would one say of a Jewish person in Nazi Germany who thought the government was out too get him? Paranoid? If so, what would you say about about another Jewish person in Nazi Germany who didn’t think the government was out to get him? Psychologically healthy?
“Does ‘paranoid’ in fact not describe the state of mind of US officials who see all of us as potential terrorists.” etc etc.
Pwnd.
The concern about radiation is besides the point, it’s just an added utilitarian argument. And what if it turns out it’s harmless? Well there goes that argument, as it is always debatable. Same applies with fluoride, is it good or bad? Completely irrelevant - government should not control water, nor be mass medicating the population, doesn’t matter if it is good or not. Same goes with screening - government shouldn’t have a monopoly on the industry.
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was being an apologist for the state, I simply stated (Oh no, I said "state"d) that the arguments being given against the body scanners that revolve around nudity aren’t really that persuasive vs. the appearance of safety.
As for your quote on paranoia, it applies to both groups doesn’t it? The problem here is in assuming that by being part of some abstract grouping causes a person to think and act a certain way. The libertarians assume, rightly if we go even simply by Austrian price calculation theory, that anyone who disrupts the free exchange of goods and services in favor of imposing their own demands on others will not create material prosperity and perhaps even cause harm. The “paranoia” comes in when you start assuming that all employees and agents of said disruption are guilty of more vices than these. Rather than making the economic and practical case against intervention, some prefer to take the ad hominem approach by attacking adversaries personally, true or not. It reminds me of World War 1 propaganda, “Germans eat babies!” Its the malignant view of government in which you think that there are grand puppet masters behind the scenes who know their programs will fail but purposely engage for other purposes, such as satisfying their love of almighty Lucifer. They must be evil people.
TSA agents aren’t just bad means to an end, they must all be child molesters deep down inside. Right?
I was watching a video of a lecture by an ex KGB operative on the art of subversion, which is a propaganda tool in use by both supporters and detractors of the regime. It confirms what Mises said, this is a battle of ideas. If putting forward in your mind that most cops and social “workers” are pot bellied pigs in costume helps motivate you in this cause, then go for it. I think we are all guilty of prejudices of some kind, but I like to think that we should at least try to think with eyes unclouded by the need to make your opponent a villain. Is it not enough that they are simply your ideological opponents? Must they be “evil”? I suppose they must, if you want to build a case for hatred.
Likewise, there permeates a fear from within government that their opponents, whom they call terrorists, are psychotic monsters who cannot be reasoned with. It is purely the propaganda of subversion, to do the unthinkable to someone, they must lose their humanity. I was only calling out bloggers, such as on Lew Rockwell.com who delight in making such commentary.
I am not sure who you saying uses this argument, but anyhow the point of libertarians on this issue is not the “what the government is doing” it is the fact that government is doing it - another words the problem is that Americans are being forcibly coerced into greater and greater infringements of privacy in the name of safety. This violates the spirit of a right to privacy, if you believe such a right exists.
Once government, which has a monopoly on violent coercion, starts down the road of protecting us for our safety it is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Why stop at airport screening? Am I not in danger when I am in a crowded mall of terrorist attacks? They could bomb a group of cars while on the highway like in Iraq! Hell I might not be safe in my home from a large enough explosion. We might need body scanning at checkpoints all over. Of course next in line is also mind scanning, see:
If private companies owned airports (they don’t), and therefore private companies ran security (different airports could run security themselves or allow the airlines to do it) you could at least decide to go with airport/airline x or airport/airline y etc. to decide what level of security you find acceptable. Such is the case with many pieces of real estate that employ private security - I generally don’t feel threatened but I appreciate that banks employ armed private guards at times. Unarmed guards are just fine at most office buildings. I’m sure there are gradients in between. At airports however the government forces a one-size-fits-all approach. Flying from Duluth to Omaha? Get ready to get prodded because you never know where the next threat might come from!
I think they’d prefer that they don’t have to make such commentary.
How about instead, why don’t you use your time to call out bloggers, who are supporting the state - not the ones, who are calling out the state, for what it is.
And here I was thinking you were congratulating yourself for being so enlightened as to not care about people seeing you naked. Well others are not, nor are they so chic as to be comfortable with the thought of their wives, mothers, daughters or sisters being seen in such a fashion. I can see why they would not be and I can see why the people who would subject others to such treatment whether they like it or not are indeed scum.
It is totally pointless to even talk about anything regarding the TSA as a technique for catching criminals. It is not there for the criminals, it is there for the non-criminals. To put fear into the populace and to make it used to being subservient. I see similar efforts have had some effect on you already making you uncomfortable when someone around you refers to things by their real names.
State agents are not “ideologial opponents” of ours, this is not a debate club about academic issues. They are aggressors upon our rights and they are in a continuous and unrelenting attack on our dignity and freedom. If you love your dignity and freedom, you must hate the assault that would take them away.
So basically how airline security works is that the government tells them what to check for and then bails them out if there’s a mess?
They could at least put like, something that incapacitates you for 30 seconds under everyone’s seat so that no one would die, and even if you did use it on the pilots they’d be good soon enough to fly the plane… But in that thirty seconds you could totally tell like a fat chick to sit on the terrorists or lock them in the lavatories or…
Sure, and Obama will cut health care costs; the Pentagon will stop spending 600 dollars per toilet seat; the state is the master of economic calculation, and it will shrink its spending tenfold.
I’m sure you’ll make good friends with Slate and Ronald Martin.
If you are one of the few people that find that material fascinatingly erotic, I congratulate you, as I wasn’t sure there were any.
However, leaking an image is rather dangerous for any would be extractor. The time and date stamp embedded in the image is one thing on its own, but even if they photoshop that there is always the possibility of a lawsuit from the person who was photographed. They would likely know what airports and around what time the scans took place. There you go, you have the TSA agent on duty’s name. Proceed with the accusation.
As someone above commented, it is not the scanner we should care about, it is whether or not the state should have a monopoly on providing those securities.
Of course, it would be preferable for the government to not spend any money at all, but since you are being robbed, wouldn’t it be in your interest to try to keep as much as you can? Then again, we already know the state is just going to make its expenditures elsewhere with no decrease. So, I understand and share your pessimism.