TSA: Dishonest or Incompetent?

I departed Manchester this morning for a week of recurrent training. When I went to go through security, I noticed the longer that usual line. There are two checkpoints in Manchester, one of which is really two checkpoints in close proximity to each other. Half of that checkpoint was closed as was the other checkpoint, leaving just 1/3 of the normal capacity.

As I fumed, errr, waited in line (about 15 minutes of wait time), I made a few observations. None of them were really new, but I assemble them here for comment and consideration.

It appears to me that almost everyone accepts the status quo. A few people might be irritated at it, but I see and hear of little action to change it. In fact, it seems even the volume of dissenting words has diminished over the last few years. So I concede that people may truly love their government, and I suppose I’m giving up on ‘stealing’ it away from it.

But when I read statements like “High Risk of Terrorist Attack,” I cannot help but evaluate it against its environment. That sentiment is the foundation for the presumed authority (or at least benefit) of TSA’s activity. If there were no or low risk for attack, there would be no reason for the type of screening we have today.

But is the risk truly high? For almost the entire tenure of TSA’s posted threat levels, the threat level has remained at orange – High Risk. During those many years, there has not been a single actual attack. Hundreds of millions of passengers walk by those signs each year and not one of them has been attacked by a terrorist. In fact, in the entire history of “High Risk of Terrorist Attack,” not a single person who has ever read one of those signs has suffered a terrorist attack.

While some in the TSA might try to make the case that the TSA has caused the absence of terrorist attacks (a statement I would dispute), it is totally irrational to observe the actual environment and come to the conclusion that the risk is truly high.

If the risk were high, actual attempts at terrorist attacks would be regularly made. For example, I would call the risk “High” if there were many attempts each month. But clearly the flying public knows the risk is actually “Almost Nil.” If they thought otherwise, very few would actually fly.

So why, then, do they implicitly believe the TSA’s clearly wrong assessment and accept it as the foundation for unnecessarily oppressive security screening (never mind the separate discussion of whether TSA has a legitimate right to screen at all)? The conclusion I’ve come to is that the overwhelming majority of people are simply brainwashed. As is depicted in the book (or movie) 1984, they have accepted the government repeatedly telling them that the risk is high. They are told on signs, by the news media, over the PA at airports, and in many other ways. And they believe it despite the overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary.

Once again, I wonder, should I force them to think? Or should I simply let them go on being deceived? Alas, the latter option, at the moment, results in serious negative consequences for me personally. But maybe there’s a way we can peacefully coexist and yet dramatically reduce the harm they cause me? This train of thought (and the TSA example is just one of many available) leads me to wonder if a ‘society within a society’ might be a good solution. If so, maybe it’s worth pursuing such an idea. If not, I fear a revolution is unavoidable and may not even be successful due to the overwhelming population of deceived government worshippers.

Whatever the solution, the advent and success of the Free State Project gives me hope that some acceptable solution may be seriously pursued at some point in the not-too-distant future. Anyone who feels they are both aware of and agree with the pro-liberty analysis of this and so many other examples of irrational and unrighteous government aggression would be well served to check out the Free State Project. For the rest of you, we now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

V-