Smaller Government Could Undermine Terrorists

[Cerran]

By Dan Litwin, Free Market News Network

April 8, 2005

Could smaller government undermine terrorists? According to BoydForbes Security, airline safety is no better than it was on 9/11, so it seems that the "big government" solutions have failed us. With this record of failure in mind, I would like to propose three reductions in government that really would improve airline security. Imagine: getting security for a savings:

a.. Allow private programs for arming pilots.

b.. Allow a truly free market in airline security.

c.. Refuse to bail out private insurance companies with taxpayer money.

Since we're no better off now than we were on 9/11 - even after the nationalization of airline security - let's examine each of my smaller government proposals.

Allowing private programs for arming pilots

It's illegal for airline pilots to arm themselves, and it's been that way since decades before 9/11. But since that day, many people have called for the arming of airline pilots. And why not? Even liquor stores have armed security.

Unbelievably, the Bush administration started out saying that arming pilots was a bad idea. After much pressure, the government began a program to arm pilots if they submitted to training. Unfortunately, it is reported that pilot training has been disrupted by - go figure - the government's own brand new airline security agency.

So we have a failed government program to arm pilots, and a rule against arming them privately. Suddenly, I see two candidates for smaller government.

We could start by getting rid of the government bureaucracy that "trains" pilots, and whatever portion of the Federal Aviation Administration stops private efforts to arm them (use the money saved for programs that help people, like paying down the national debt, or reducing taxes).

Then, simply allow each airline to train and arm its pilots as it sees fit. In the aftermath of 9/11, it seems like cheap insurance for airlines to arm their pilots. It might work to undermine terrorists - without costing the taxpayer a thing.

Allowing a truly free market in airline security

While allowing armed pilots is a start, some people believe that even more should be done, and say they want under-cover armed guards, too. Others want still more, such as guards in uniform. And again, why not?

If we lived in a free country, each airline company could offer whatever they believed their customers wanted - not just armed pilots. Why not see which airline comes up with the closest security to what we each desire? Why shouldn't there be a chance that one of them will please you?

For now, the government limits our options in airline security to its own "Air Marshals" - armed government agents that might be on your flight. And what are the actual chances that a Federal Air Marshal will be on your flight? The Washington Times reports "official" statistics of about 1 in 10 flights. Unfortunately, according to the same article, the marshals themselves say that's propaganda, suggesting that it's closer to 1 in every 25. So let's go with what we know really happened on 9/11: Four planes. Zero "Air Marshals". Those are not very good odds.

Talk-radio's Michael Savage has vented that we could've protected ourselves better than the government protected us on 9/11. Amen.

Allowing a free market in airline security would cost the taxpayer nothing, and the competition for our business would drive air security in a saner direction for a change. It would be an obvious improvement over our current unprotected status, and would definitely discourage terrorists.

Refusing to bail out private insurance companies with taxpayer money

After 9/11, it made sense for insurance companies to complain about the cost of life & liability claims:

a.. Since the law allowed no armed security, airlines were sitting ducks for a terrorist attack.

b.. Why should insurance companies alone pay for that?

Indeed, they did not. According to the US Department of the Treasury, tax money was used to pay back to the insurance companies some of what should've been 100% insurance industry costs (a convenient web site was even set up to help insurers get their loot).

If we allowed the free-market security outlined earlier, insurance companies would have no excuse for not paying all insurance claims.

And government refusals to bail out private insurance companies would do more than save tax dollars. With all that liability on their minds, the insurance industry might take a greater interest in airline safety and the capture of terrorists. Insurers might lobby for the FBI or CIA to actually catch terrorist organizers. Or they might chase down terrorists themselves, to reduce their risk. Think of it: If you were Osama bin Laden, would you want those evil insurance companies chasing after you?

Not that I have anything against the rich, but the answer here seems to be to let the rich insurance companies pay it all. Then we'll see corporate responsibility in action.

Make the airlines and their insurers responsible for airline safety, give them the freedom to act, and you'll never have to bail out an insurance company again. And the results would further undermine terrorists.

To summarize

We can continue with "big government" policies and remain unprotected. Or we can try intelligent reductions in government that will help. Allowing private pilot training. Allowing freedom in airline security for innovation and choice. Never having a government bailout of a private insurance company.

The really big problem is that our current politicians won't even talk about "smaller government" because they have no interest in reducing their own power. All they ever consider is more government. It's too bad they're so corrupt. Because when government doesn't work, as is the case here, we the people get no solution at all - and the terrorists win.

[Gerioke]

By Dan Litwin, Free Market News Network

April 8, 2005

Could smaller government undermine terrorists? According to BoydForbes Security, airline safety is no better than it was on 9/11, so it seems that the "big government" solutions have failed us. With this record of failure in mind, I would like to propose three reductions in government that really would improve airline security. Imagine: getting security for a savings:

a.. Allow private programs for arming pilots.

b.. Allow a truly free market in airline security.

c.. Refuse to bail out private insurance companies with taxpayer money.

Since we're no better off now than we were on 9/11 - even after the nationalization of airline security - let's examine each of my smaller government proposals.

Allowing private programs for arming pilots

It's illegal for airline pilots to arm themselves, and it's been that way since decades before 9/11. But since that day, many people have called for the arming of airline pilots. And why not? Even liquor stores have armed security.

Unbelievably, the Bush administration started out saying that arming pilots was a bad idea. After much pressure, the government began a program to arm pilots if they submitted to training. Unfortunately, it is reported that pilot training has been disrupted by - go figure - the government's own brand new airline security agency.

So we have a failed government program to arm pilots, and a rule against arming them privately. Suddenly, I see two candidates for smaller government.

We could start by getting rid of the government bureaucracy that "trains" pilots, and whatever portion of the Federal Aviation Administration stops private efforts to arm them (use the money saved for programs that help people, like paying down the national debt, or reducing taxes).

Then, simply allow each airline to train and arm its pilots as it sees fit. In the aftermath of 9/11, it seems like cheap insurance for airlines to arm their pilots. It might work to undermine terrorists - without costing the taxpayer a thing.

Allowing a truly free market in airline security

While allowing armed pilots is a start, some people believe that even more should be done, and say they want under-cover armed guards, too. Others want still more, such as guards in uniform. And again, why not?

If we lived in a free country, each airline company could offer whatever they believed their customers wanted - not just armed pilots. Why not see which airline comes up with the closest security to what we each desire? Why shouldn't there be a chance that one of them will please you?

For now, the government limits our options in airline security to its own "Air Marshals" - armed government agents that might be on your flight. And what are the actual chances that a Federal Air Marshal will be on your flight? The Washington Times reports "official" statistics of about 1 in 10 flights. Unfortunately, according to the same article, the marshals themselves say that's propaganda, suggesting that it's closer to 1 in every 25. So let's go with what we know really happened on 9/11: Four planes. Zero "Air Marshals". Those are not very good odds.

Talk-radio's Michael Savage has vented that we could've protected ourselves better than the government protected us on 9/11. Amen.

Allowing a free market in airline security would cost the taxpayer nothing, and the competition for our business would drive air security in a saner direction for a change. It would be an obvious improvement over our current unprotected status, and would definitely discourage terrorists.

Refusing to bail out private insurance companies with taxpayer money

After 9/11, it made sense for insurance companies to complain about the cost of life & liability claims:

a.. Since the law allowed no armed security, airlines were sitting ducks for a terrorist attack.

b.. Why should insurance companies alone pay for that?

Indeed, they did not. According to the US Department of the Treasury, tax money was used to pay back to the insurance companies some of what should've been 100% insurance industry costs (a convenient web site was even set up to help insurers get their loot).

If we allowed the free-market security outlined earlier, insurance companies would have no excuse for not paying all insurance claims.

And government refusals to bail out private insurance companies would do more than save tax dollars. With all that liability on their minds, the insurance industry might take a greater interest in airline safety and the capture of terrorists. Insurers might lobby for the FBI or CIA to actually catch terrorist organizers. Or they might chase down terrorists themselves, to reduce their risk. Think of it: If you were Osama bin Laden, would you want those evil insurance companies chasing after you?

Not that I have anything against the rich, but the answer here seems to be to let the rich insurance companies pay it all. Then we'll see corporate responsibility in action.

Make the airlines and their insurers responsible for airline safety, give them the freedom to act, and you'll never have to bail out an insurance company again. And the results would further undermine terrorists.

To summarize

We can continue with "big government" policies and remain unprotected. Or we can try intelligent reductions in government that will help. Allowing private pilot training. Allowing freedom in airline security for innovation and choice. Never having a government bailout of a private insurance company.

The really big problem is that our current politicians won't even talk about "smaller government" because they have no interest in reducing their own power. All they ever consider is more government. It's too bad they're so corrupt. Because when government doesn't work, as is the case here, we the people get no solution at all - and the terrorists win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shoot everything that moves

[Cerran]

Ummm Gerioke, did you even read the article? That's not what it's about.

[Gerioke]

Make the rich pay... then shoot them

[Cerran]

I highly suggest you re-read it. I don't think you understood it.

[Gerioke]

Fire the government, train a bunch of pilots, give them guns to shoot the politicians

then shoot the pilots and learn to fly our selves so we can reserve the right to deny anybody access to our airplanes and then we can just let people we like fly with us thus reducing the risk of terrorist intervention?

[Cerran]

Funny, but not really the intent of the article. It just points out that privatized security would be both more effective and cheaper.

Being from Canada I have a great book for you - It's called More Guns, Less Crime by John R Lott Jr.

It's a excellent study of the effect of private gun ownership on crime.

[Gerioke]

Funny, but not really the intent of the article. It just points out that privatized security would be both more effective and cheaper.

Being from Canada I have a great book for you - It's called More Guns, Less Crime by John R Lott Jr.

It's a excellent study of the effect of private gun ownership on crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey , I'm all for gun ownership for the private citezn.

I used to own quite a few guns when I lived in Northern Ontario. When I moved to the Toronto area I felt the local authorities would not share my enthusiasm for the right to own arms so I sold them all. I now wish I hadn't cause food is so expensive here I would be inclined to snag the odd pheasant.

I know I still have a slingshot kicking around here some where. I used to use that for hunting partridge. yummm

Your smaller government theory may be a valid concept but unfortunately the government would see that as being a threat to their cause, oppression of the poor and all