Comments (25)

• Lee De Francesco

  I've flown a half a dozen times since 9/11 and my flights were always on time. If you watch the weatherchannel enough you will notice over time that delays are minimal and are caused mainly by weather. So whats this guy talking about...? If I were President during 9/11 I would have gotten up in front of the american people and told them "You were duped, we had you trained that during a hostage situation you are to do nothing, well from now on feel free to intercede." Thats all Bush needed to do. Simple.....

  Published: May 29, 2006 9:06 AM

• Angelo

  Ok, that's it. That's two articles in a row now with major grammatical errors. I submit, from the middle of today's article:

  "Growth is a good thing. Robert Browning to the contrary, more — not less — is more."

  There should be some kind of modifier or verb or something to make sense of the "Robert Browning to the contrary, more" clause.

  Mises Institute to the contrary-grammatical mistakes-are made.

  Published: May 29, 2006 10:24 AM

• David K. Meller

  Dear Mr. Kern,

  Those are the approximate costs imposed by only a single government bureaucracy, concentrated against a single industry. It is certainly possible that due to e.g. space considerations, you might overlooked certain costs or liabilites even here. I suppose if you multiply the costs and liabilities cited there by a factor of 10000+ or so, it will give you an impression of the costs of "government", its laws, regulations, surveys, "safeguards", audits, and endless intrusive and useless paperwork (and computerwork) on real people!

  This article certainly gives us a brief overview of how immensely costly and destructive government is!

  I suspect that any reader can have a good idea of how immeasurably more prosperous and peaceful our society would be if this profoundly pathogenic and destructive entity, devoted only to force and fraud, didn't exist.

  I hope that more people discover how we can do a lot better soon, and we can replace this dinosaur with legitimate, peaceful, contractual free-market arrangements. (my apologies to dinosaurs!). This article might help.

  Oh, to be governed!!

  Thanks for writing.

  PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
  David K.Meller

  Published: May 29, 2006 10:52 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  Angelo, "Robert Browning to the contrary, more is more" seems like good grammar to me. The supposedly analogous sentence at the end of your comment has an entirely different structure than the sentence in question.

  Published: May 29, 2006 11:33 AM

• David C

  
  It just shows that they truely have no clue as how to use liberty to get results. Truth is, if they really wanted more security, they would request and expect all passangers to carry an 8 inch knife on the plane. Really, how many people would dare hijack such a plane?

  Published: May 29, 2006 12:54 PM

• Angelo

  But there is no verb, preposition, or anything for that sentence to make sense. Had it said something like, "Contrary to what Robert Browning believes," or, "To the contrary, Robert Browning believes..."

  Now, both of those examples I gave mean different things, but that's precisely the problem: The sentence makes no sense and is incomplete.

  Come on, now, let's not be ridiculous. The clause simply makes no sense and is incomplete.

  Published: May 29, 2006 1:54 PM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  The ironic joke about the subject of red tape in general is that the movement which got the regulatory State rolling during its infancy, Veblenism, castigated the free market for its supposed time inefficiencies, ones caused by the need to haggle!

  If only Veblen could be drug [okay, "dragged"] up from the grave to see what his thought has wrought...

  Published: May 29, 2006 1:58 PM

• Sione

  Last time I visited the USA I was informed I had to arrive at the airport three hours before my flight in order to be screened and processed. Three hours!

  And they were right. It took three hours to get to the plane. Most of that three hours was spent waiting to be searched, waiting to have someone issue orders and waiting and then waiting some more. Stay in line and wait. That's how you are safe.

  And that's how to remember the land of the free. Waiting in lines until a uniform with a gun, handcuffs and a baton orders you to move up, ready to be processed and screened. In Europe they have it better- even in France. Where did you guys go wrong?

  Sione

  Published: May 29, 2006 2:15 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  But there is no verb, preposition, or anything for that sentence to make sense.

  The sentence contains a verb. I do see what you mean about the clause, but whether it is perfect grammar or not, it is fairly common usage. It's the same as saying "Despite Robert Browning, more is more." That's the intent, at least.

  I do notice some really, really bad grammar in the Daily Articles from time to time, though, so I'm sympathetic to your disgust.

  Published: May 29, 2006 3:33 PM

• Tim Kern

  I apologize to those upon whom the message was lost, due to perhaps obscure (though correct) grammar.
  By the way, what do you think of the premise of the article?

  Published: May 29, 2006 4:58 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  Article? Oh yeah...

  Well, adding up hours in that way goes against subjective value theory, but it is a good illustration. I often think time like that when pondering the effects of speed limits.

  Published: May 29, 2006 5:11 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  That should be "think of time."

  Published: May 29, 2006 5:13 PM

• M E Hoffer

  Tim,

  Apologize for nothing. The self-imposed grammar-Stasi are, as you point out, incorrect(in more ways than one).

  The premise of your article was fine. Its intent clear and your writing lucid.

  You show, well, by easy to follow examination, the wastes incurred by our accepting further government intervention in the marketplace.

  Your article, rightly, should be submitted to the major news wires--barring MSM uptake, not--then should be distro'd by handbill(at the airport) and via e|mail blast to weblogs extant.

  The only thing, that you may have missed, would be the statistically significant jump in baggage theft since the TSA took over.

  Keep up the good work, lights, like yours, help keep the howling Darkness at bay.

  Published: May 29, 2006 5:22 PM

• Hugh Akston

  Make the airlines strictly liable for the damage when their planes crash and let them figure out the best way to secure their planes. Done.

  Published: May 29, 2006 8:33 PM

• Don Marek

  TSA has been a total waste of money and all the overpaid TSA parasites should be fired immediately.

  As a lab manager, I have talked to scientific instrument support engineers for major companies, and it is simply easier to drive with your equipment and toolkit as opposed to haul on the plane.

  TSA is a total drag on the economy. I myself do not care to fly because of the increased statism.

  Published: May 29, 2006 9:36 PM

• David Caskey

  First the gramar and spelling. Most of us were educated in public school. And some like myself have difficulty with spelling due to mild learning disorders. Finally, I am taking a brief moment to comment and could care less.
  Now to the issue. The actions of the TSA and the government are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Those who wrote this Constitution anticipated that the government would become hysterical and try to use their power for political purpose. Thus, it is against the law to preform the searches. The reason that this is not stopped by the courts is that they seem to think that it prevents terrorists acts and that air travel is something you can avoid if you desire. Both are wrong.
  The only reason that we have not had another terrorist action is that they do not want to. Once you do something to alter the rules of engagement as the 9/11 people did, then the rules change such that passengers will stop the action. If the pilots and crew had done their job to begin with there would not have been a 9/11. I will further submit that if someone wanted to get any class of weapon on a plane that the TSA would not be able to stop that activity. Guns, bombs, weapons of mass distruction can all be cared on a plane by a professional under the noses of any security person in the US. So, why are we going through all this? It looks good and makes the average person think something is being done.
  I would say that since 9/11 we have done nothing to really prevent another attack. Sound and fury that signifies nothing. Further, the airlines have used all this to justify their collective desire to pass on the absolute worst service any industry is capable of. I myself try everything to avoid the use of a plane (even driving thousands of miles). If we don't do something to stop all of this protecting us, then we will have little freedom to fight for (perhaps that is the real reason for the security).

  Published: May 30, 2006 9:13 AM

• Joe

  Tim Kern wrote:
  

  
  
  • "Note that, before 9-11, the first 75 years of US commercial air travel had no such incidents, and there was no TSA."

  Although there were no incidents like 9-11, there have been several hijackings over the years, particularly since the '70s when the U.S. starting meddling much more in the Middle East. It would be interesting to find out what impact the TSA has had on attempted hijackings and similar incidents.
  

• "There were 738 million enplanements (670 million domestic and 68 million international flights by US carriers) in the United States last year ..."

According to the source of those stats, that include both originating and connecting flights. Aren't most connecting flight passengers spared of TSA delays (in any case, it's built-in to the connect-time delay)?

Published: May 30, 2006 11:40 AM

• Braxton

  Of course, it is possible to read a book or otherwise multitask such that the delay is not perhaps as penultimate as death itself...

  Published: May 30, 2006 4:41 PM

• jeffrey

  Well, it would appear that our friends at the Wall Street Journal didn't like Mr. Kern's article!

  Published: May 30, 2006 9:05 PM

• Greg

  David Caskey: Finally, I am taking a brief moment to comment and could care less.
  
  
  Did you mean you "could not care less?"
  
  
  No one's grammer is nearly as bad as the government's "behavior."
  

  Published: May 31, 2006 12:27 PM

• Paul M.

  jeffrey, that little hit piece by Taranto in the Online Journal was very disappointing, and seemed calculated to cast libertarianism and by association, the Austrian school of economic theory, in a bad light. It was a classic ad-hominem argument.

  It's quite obvious that Mr. Kern intended to illustrate absurdity via the use of another absurdity. The fact is that the TSA is an ineffective and costly bureaucracy. But simply stating it that plainly is likely to have very little impact. (oops! There’s a sentence fragment...) We can argue about the amount of time and effort that is wasted in order to accommodate the TSA, but it seems pretty obvious that the cumulative cost is enormous and there's little benefit provided in exchange.

  Hugh Akston's comment from May 29 nicely sums up how flight security should be approached.
  

  Published: June 1, 2006 11:55 AM

• Jeff Zervas

  Awesome analysis.

  Great points.

  Accurate conclusion.

  "To those who know and understand there is no need to explain. To those who do not know or understand, there is no way to."

  Note to the grammarians: Find a life.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 12:27 PM

• Martin Coady

  I thoroughly enjoyed the article. I have long thought that the TSA in particular and Homeland Security in general serve solely to inconvenience the legitimate traveler.

  Every airport incident I have seen reported involved a traveler doing something strange but not necessarily threatening such as leaving his shoes at security or running past the checkpoint, more likely to be a crackpot than a real threat. I suppose the TSA would counter that they prevent the potential plotter from even showing up. I submit that that argument is specious.

  When I was a young man, I worked for a brief period for a quasi-governmental health planning agengy funded by federal grant whose stated purpose was to contain health care costs. When confronted with the fact that health care costs continued to rise at double-digit rates, supporters of the approach, mostly those profiting from the federal grants, responded that costs would rise even faster in their absence -- an argument than cannot be disproven but is nonetheless disingenuous. In the TSA, we have an even more elusive situation. As long as no one hijacks an airplane, they can claim success despite the fact that hijackings of US plains for any purpose dropped off to zero after implementation of the original, alledgedly inadequate, security efforts implemented in the 1970's. Perhaps, like those health planning agencies, TSA will die a natural death. We can only hope.

  Published: June 4, 2006 7:27 AM

• Lowell Devall

  Critique my grammatical errors if you wish honestly I think your lame for doing that. What kind of anal idiot are you? First off lets recall that the hijackers posed as business travelers in the first place. Sorry to inconvience you "selfish, i want it all types" but look at the video from Logan Airport and you can see for your self. So why dont we concentrate on what has NOT happened since that horrible day? I beleieve since then we have not experienced another attack. In fact friends(I am former Ranger) of mine who work for the government tell me that there are attempted attacks that are stopped that never make the news.
  Get over your self you anal, self-absorbed ass!

  Lowell-Arden Assen Devall(US Army)

  Published: June 20, 2006 9:27 PM

• Tim Kern

  Now that the TSA has banned a state of matter from flights, perhaps they could do something more effective than merely ask if a passenger is carrying liquids, gels, etc.

  While flying last week, I noticed that the TSA doesn't check one's pockets, etc. Of course, toothpaste, shampoo, and thousands of other banned substances are supplied in plastic packaging, which doesn't trip the wand. Of course, the TSA knows that terrorists don't know that, and wouldn't refill plastic containers, at any rate. Don't mind my rant; I'm just glad to be so much safer!

  Published: August 29, 2006 7:29 PM