Ohh, the wonderful places this country has gone along the road of good intentions. I think that screening would be much more efficient if we banned all carry ons and required everyone to board the plane naked. Would safe lots of time. Yes that does sound ludicrous, but I assure you, the road of good intentions will end not that far distant from what I just described.

First of all, the unconstitutional debarring of weapons from citizens must stop. A plane full of armed citizens would have stopped 9/11 dead in its tracks. Armed citizens are the best defense, not only against terrorism, but against the state itself.

Secondly, get rid of the TSA and let people handle security who actually have a clue. I could set up security in few days that would be far superior than the garbage that the TSA has spent five years trying to come up with. Bomb sniffing dogs at security checkpoints would help. And profiling passengers to see who actually needs to be subjected to a closer screening.

Terrorism is quite possibly the biggest issue in politics today, and it poses a major problem for the LP in my opinion. Being the party of principle, and attempting to live by the code of "a nation of laws, not men," Libertarians have led the fight against trampling on civil liberties in the name of "protection."

But terrorists still seek our demise. Although a by-product of U.S. policy in the Middle East, terrorism is here and cannot be wished away by saying "We shouldn't be over there" because, although true, such a position does nothing to protect us in the meantime.

So what is the LP position on protecting America from terrorism, a threat that comes from looking at civilian groups rather than state actors? Violating civil liberties and rights to privacy are major issues for Libertarians, but how do we reconcile that position with defeating what ostensibly remains a civilian-form of foreign attack? As I said, it would seem that if we removed our overt support for Israel and withrew forces from the Islamic nations in the region we would be putting ourselves on a solid ground for the future. But until the last troop leaves, what can our position be? In other words, what is our compromise to achieve political viability in the public arena?

Being the party of principle often leads us to believe that we cannot compromise. But politics is often about doing just that, and in order to gain a foothold in national politics we may need to look at an "ends justify the means" position. In other words, accept that there are gray areas and not just black and white.

I pose this not as a rhetoric question, but because I have personally been wondering how we Libertarians can reconcile America's right to defend itself with the Bill of Rights.

The reason that this seems like such a difficult issue for us to address it that it has roots in several diverse policies:

1) If the Immigration Service wasn't so bogged down in trying to keep out those who only want to come here to work, we could have effective security at the border to keep out those who intend us harm.

2) If we did not exempt our businesses, through corporate charters, from liability for any harm they cause, they would not be so inclined to blithely trample on the peoples they encounter abroad, giving foreign populaces a negative impression of Americans.

3) If, in addition to Israel, we removed our support from friendly tyrannies (Pakistan & Saudi Arabia, I'm looking at you), we would not be seen as oppressors-by-proxy nor would we be available as a scapegoat for these regimes to blame for their failures.

Marcus Brutus - There is no conflict between the Bill of Rights and our National Defense. It simply takes some Common Sense (pun intended) and reasonable safeguards.

Mark B. - While a few Concealed carries on each plane might have stopped 9/11, they would do nothing to foil a plot such as uncovered last week.

Mark P. - Corporate Charters do not protect our businesses abroad...not only are they totally subject to local laws and enforcement procedures, but US law forbids them from engaging in that most time-honored of third world practices...bribery.

And all - We are, by default, a world power. wishing differently won't change a thing. Further, our standard of living...indeed the ways of the world today...demand that we remain engaged on many levels.

And most importantly, our enemies in today's world would not change their goals or behaviors one iota if we were to retreat within our borders and disengage from the world entirely. They are driven, not simply by opposition to our policies, but by a "messianic" mission to either convert or destroy us.

Our options are limited...which is not to say we could not and should not make a few better decisions. But the real world is the real world.

"Convert to Islam or Die." So, if America withdrew from the world, and had libertarian values, the fanatical Islamists would leave us alone? How about their desire to free their Islamic brothers from our refusal to implement Sharia? Quaker pacifism only works as long as they have neighbors willing to defend them (and then they can feel "superior" to those of us who believe violence in self-defense is moral and appropriate.) These who seek us harm do not appear to be tolerant people who would leave us alone if only we gave in to one or two reasonable demands. Their brand of Islam is not a tolerant religion that lets God be the judge. A President
Rodham, McClain or Badnarik cannot allow themselves to be backed into a corner where the only options are to rain nuclear retaliation on Muslim cities or surrender.

People complain so much about the "excessive" security measures, and its sad that they don't see the source of the problem. The solution is so simple: don't let the government own the airports.

Extremists who oppose the "American" way of capitalism and free-market systems aren't going to go away any time soon. They are, for the present and foreseeable future, a very-real and practically insurmountable threat.

That said, our government is doing a pretty lame job of acknowledging that this is a long-term threat, and an even worse job of determining a long-term policy to combat it. The recent spate of TSA rule changes in the wake of the British plot uncovering, however, just goes back to the question at the root of the issue: Can we EVER be safe enough? How much of our own personal comfort and privacy are we going to be willing to give up in order to minimize our risk? And then, even if we were to allow the state to rule our lives, would we be safe? Where do we stand up and say, "This is enough, I'll take the chance of having my plane blown up so that I can carry my personal belongings on-board with me"? Is that a risk you're willing to take?

So what can we do? Get people to stop and look at the situation and RATIONALLY evaluate what's going on. We need to streamline the intelligence community internationally, cut down on the secrecy and blame-darting of the Bush administration, and evaluate how far, as nation, we're willing to allow the government the ability to track these extremists. Until the nation as a whole gets interested and educated on the cost of 'protection', nothing is going to change.

>>People complain so much about the "excessive" security measures, and its sad that they don't see the source of the problem. The solution is so simple: don't let the government own the airports.<<

amen. privatize them and let them be entirely responsible for security.

Last time I checked an airline is a private company. They can choose who and what may board their planes. It is not yoru right to fly on someone else's property, they allow you to do so with the purchase of a ticket. They can deny you access if you fail to abide by their rules.

Nope, airlines are PUBLIC companies by right of their corporate charters, and as such are de facto agents of the government.

My earlier reference to corporations showing the world an ugly American face was referring to a general attitude within corporate action; they grow accustomed to protection and special treatment as they grow in market power within this country, and then when they move on to foreign markets they are insensitive juggernauts which cannot be contained by local laws administered by corrupt officials.

Yes, radical Islamists want to spread their influence in the world, but their dreams of a far-reaching Muslim land include the Middle East and extend as far as the Mediterranean and the Pacific. Saddam once dreamed of being the leader of such a Muslim State.

But that doesn't include the United States. True, we cannot hole ourselves up and hope for the best in the world, as our influence extends beyond our boundaries whether our soldiers do or not. That radical Jihadists see Las Vegas and think of us as the Whore of Babylon is hardly disputable, but would they be more willing to live half a world away and accept the situation if Vegas existed and our troops weren't on their soil? More than likely, yes. Look at the Catholic nations in South America. If Muslims truly want to achieve global dominance, why aren't they flying planes into Rio? Brazil might not have the world influence that we do, but Islamists, to my knowledge, have not made any reference to destroying the regimes in South America at all. It's the United States that gets targeted; they may hate our influence, but what drives them to kill others (and themselves) is our status as occupiers and support for a state they deny exists legitimately. Our trade policy might anger them, but as members of their own society they have the power to determine what their own trade policy is. Free trade is good for the world, but if a country doesn't want it then it doesn't HAVE to accept it. Terrorists might be willing to kill in the name of Allah, but if they can achieve an economic goal through economic ends, we can't assume that they wouldn't do so. Violence to them is common, but they commit terrorism because they have no other option. With economic problems, they have a clear alternative.

It's a common error the confuse the irrationality of terrorism in general with the terrorists' intentions specifically. Viewed as occupiers and supporters of the "Zionists regime" Israel, America is a target of these fundamentalists. Knock out America, and Israel loses a major acknowledgement in the world stage, and weapons technology can no longer be sent to the Jews in the so-called Muslim land. It's stupid what they believe, but just because we can see its idiocy doesn't mean that we have to ignore the ramifications.

But, in essence, this was a major reason why I posed the question earlier in the thread: What can a Libertarian propose that can protect us against the threat of terrorism until the ideal is reached, where our military protects the United States and is not stretched thinly across the entire world? Libertarian or not, a true American would not want to see his or her country attacked and fellow citizens slaughtered; we cannot ignore the threat of terrorism or simply dismiss it as a passing phase. But we also must be vigilant in not allowing the Constitution to be trampled in the process of reaching a particular ideal. It appears to me to be a Catch 22, although I am more than open to hearing the Libertarian solution (being a Libertarian myself.)

hunkpapa wrote

>>Last time I checked an airline is a private company<<

exactly why we're proposing airPORTS be privatized. I wish I could put it in bold.

And in this country, private businesses and individuals cannot discriminate based on religion or race, despite the sign saying "we can refuse service for any reason"

When I sell or rent a house, I cannot advertise for Whites only or Christians only (but I might be able to get away with Blacks only). And a fast food restaurant cannot refuse service to someone simply because they are handicapped or Black (or Mexican or whatever). Check your local laws and court decisions. Precedent is a bitch.

The concept of private property was lost long ago.

Privatizing airPORTS will not allow them to discriminate (as is their right), but it will force them to find better and quicker solutions to the security problem or risk losing money due to customer dissatisfaction as competitors pop up...assuming government regulation doesn't allow them a monopoly on the service of connecting passengers with flights.

*sigh* there is no hope here. Expect the worst and figure out ways to use the system to your advantage. Get enough money and fly via private jet.

Marcus Brutus has done us a favor by proposing a debate on principles, issues, etc. of the proper libertarian response to terror and our enemies.
He has done so without ad hominem attacks, flag waving, accusations against our officials or shadowy conspirators. This is precisely what the Libertarian movement has needed. It is what one wishes the Republicans and Democrats could do without the rancor. Five years on and the Democrats have no proposals other than to attack the Bush administration. If the Democrats can't or won't debate the neo-cons Wilsonianism, then
we Libertarians must. And we have to do it in a manner that interests and comforts the vast number of Americans who have been polarized by fear and hatred. Maybe the LP should gather together the best and brightest minds on the subject and issue a white paper on the subject that covers the reasons for Islamofascism and how to combat and/or live with it using libertarian principles.

My personal libertarian outline to this problem.

1. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. And for that matter from everywhere else in the world while we are at it.

2. Make drastic reductions in U.S. conventional forces resulting in less burden on U.S. economy.

3. Abolish T.S.A. and turn screening and security over to the private market. Abolish government port security and let the private market handle that also.

4. Use some of the money saved by reductions in the military on increased human intelligence. Yes, I know, human intelligence and government are contradictory, but go with me on this anyhow. :)

5. End all economic and military aid to the world, including the annual tribute of $3 Billion to Israel.

6. By removing some of the burden off the economy by military reductions, private industry can better work to provide its own, far more efficient, security.

7. A well armed citizenry is the best defense.

8. We cannot, nor should not, do anything about the Islamo-fascist movements in the Middle East. They must solve their own problems.

9. We should engage in free trade with the whole world, regardless of their trade policies. Free trade is ultimately its own reward.

As for 1-5, and 8...

Sounds like a replay of Harry Browne's moral cowardice.

Libertarianism and suicide do not have to be synonymous.

Minding your business is hardly moral cowardness. Standing up to Neo-conservatives and Zionists is not moral cowardness. Taking a principled stand is not moral cowardness.

Harry Browne was a man of high principles and using an ad hominem against him is a slap against libertarianism in general.

I like the white paper idea for this and many other issues, but the comment section of a blog isn't well suited for hashing out ideas.

We should consider implementing, as part of this website, a forum similar to the countless others across the web (the software should be readily available), where the topics of discussion are not handed down from on high by the individual writing the blog.

Users should be ID'd by their names (last initials or full last name, option of the user, to protect those of us whose political speech is restricted by Article 88 of the UCMJ), states of residency, and level of membership in the party (perhaps require party membership to register for the forum, but definitely allow anyone to read it). Thoughts?

Mark P.

We do have a forum. Click the LP Stuff button at the top of this page to take you to www.lpstuff.com Once there, click on the forums button. However, just for information, they evidently have been having some problems with their webhost last couple of days, because the forums and the main site of lpstuff have been intermitently offline. There are good topics going on their. In fact, we are currently having a "Minarchy" versus "Anarchism" thread right now. But you can start whatever topic you like.

To further respond to the other poster.

Retrenchment is not suicide. In fact, it makes us ultimately safer. We would not be pissing off the locals, so we would be driving fewer of them into the ranks of the terrorists. The money saved by military force reductions could be used by both government and private sector for enhanced security procedures. You could take a small fraction of the billions spent in Iraq and install radiation detectors and other security devices along the border. Retrenchment, far from suicide, makes this country safer.

OK, live & learn. The only suggestion I now have is to make the forum much more prominent.

On the lines of our national defense... I agree that we need to bring the troops home. We have the 38th parallel full of our soldiers, and we have American boys in virtually every corner of the world, and why? Most of it is residual Cold War mentality, but we aren't fighting a state now; we're fighting an idea, one that we often (but not always) have a significant hand in furthering by our presence on foreign soils.

Money saved from stationing troops around the globe, just as a suggestion, could be put into developing an adequate missile defense system. So Iran and North Korea could fire a nuke at us? Rather than provoking them with misguided policy and threat of attack, we could assure them that (1) their attack would be unsuccessful and (2) we would respond with overwhelming force. Missile defense is something that has been long criticized as too expensive without tangible rewards, but it's because after Reagan proposed it there was a drop in support for it, and Slick Willy certainly didn't want any of it. It's ironic that people can prevent funding for a particular program, then say that it's not worth funding because it hasn't produced results, when those results are contingent upon research and materials that, imagine this, require capital.

The government has the power, indeed duty, to provide for the common defense. Missile defense seems to me to be the ultimate expression of protecting American citizens from nuclear attacks, a major rationale for going into Iraq and yelling at Iran today. Recent tests have been effective, but by no means perfect or arguably even adequate. But with more emphasis, the American military would definitely be able to provide the ingenuity and technology to make it a reality.

I hope that the TSA bans laptops and everything else. It will finally bring about the complete demise (we're already half way there, most carriers are heading down the tubes) of a useless industy (sorry, we dont NEED air travel, high speed trains will work just fine and would be cheaper, too) that is heavily subsidized at taxpayer expense.

The fact of the matter is the airlines should have folded long ago but they have been allowed to suck John Q. Taxpayer dry through federal subsidies. This while you have pilots who make six figure incomes for working 20 hours a week out holding union banners, on strike and demanding more fair compensation. What a joke this country has become.

Ever since I saw all that BS go on, I started taking Amtrak. Yes, I know, it is subsidized by the feds too. But not nearly as much as the airlines. The service is better, the tickets cheaper and you actually have enough room for your legs. Its the lesser of two evils.

Actually, the smaller carriers, the ones who aren't buried up to their neck in union bullsh*t and drowning in pension and health obligations rammed down their throats by unions, those small carriers are doing great.

I agree that subsidies allowing the older airlines to scrape by should be ended, allowing these old dinosaurs to collapse and the more efficient airlines allowed to build on the space left by the corpses of the old airlines. Also, foreign airlines should be allowed to compete freely on domestic routes and should be allowed to purchase domestic airlines.

I have to disagree on Amtrak. It is a horribly subsidized mess. While fares are acceptable, they are absolutely ludicrous on the rates they charge for sleeping accomadations. I have declined to travel on Amtrak for that reason. If the sleeping accomadations were somewhat reasonable in price, I would consider traveling Amtrak. You can't even get old style Pullman sleeper berths anymore. I would be content with that.

High speed trains would be nice, but as I don't see any in the United States, airlines are rather a necessity. A week long drive from New York to San Francisco is not exactly an option for most businessmen. I used to enjoy flying, before 9/11 when at least security wasn't a total pain.

The whole problem with aviation security is that your vehicle is a potential missle flying at 35,000 feet in the air. Passengers are highly vulnerable to even minor explosions or passenger misbehavior. Nobody really knows what's best in the way of aviation safety, which in turn leads to much apprehension and confusion on the part of the flying public. So we put up with a lot of TSA nonsense because we are not experts at aviation safety (who is?).

It's time for the Federal government to end its massive indirect subsidies of aviation, and to end its excusing of airline liability. People need to travel more on the surface, especially for intermediate distances. If the skys were less crowded, aviation security would be easier. We have to allow markets to re-emerge in transportation.