On Wednesday, October 24, 2001, at 11:33 AM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: > Largely, I am in agreement. However, in the paragraphs I've quoted > below, > Tim touches on a counter-argument and dismisses it. I'll like to expand > upon that a bit.
I didn't "dismiss" it. In fact, I wrote more about this issue, which I haven't seen brought up by anyone else here, than 95% of all posts to Cypherpunks have in their entire amount of original material! >> >> (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.) > > I think that this "danger to others" issue will lead us right back where > we started. It would not simply be an issue of various airports denying > use, but also communities denying airspace rights. And you can bet that, > in a world where airlines were permitted to have no security procedures, > XYZ Airlines would also have to abide by "no-fly zones" set up by the > larger, more security-conscious cities, enforceable by SAMs. I never claimed that a stable end-state is that of some airlines have "no security procedures." Such was not the case before 911, so it is even less likely today. I don't know what the evolution will look like. The ecology of the security measures will probably, if allowed to by regulators, have a few hyper-conscious players like El Al, a few cattle car playes like People Express, and a bunch of players in between. I was not "dismissing" this issue of collateral damage, of tort damage. I said Friedman explores such things in great detail. However, the current system does not allow the positive effects I described. Any airline in the U.S. (or many other countries) which attempted some obvious security measures would face lawsuits by "discriminated against" customers. This is a more pressing problem than some extremely unlikely scenario wherein some carrier adopted a "no security procedures" policy. > There would probably be places in the mid-west that permitted such > airlines to operate their services. But the market would surely kill > them > swiftly if they were denied the ability to fly or land in any popular > area. Customers would go elsewhere, not because of the lax security, but > because of the limited service offerings. You are making my point, not arguing against it. I never claimed that a spectrum of security measures would be a stable, or even a short-term, state. May's Law: The longer the essay, the more complaints there are that it was not detailed enough. --Tim May "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau
