Disagree with LRC about TSA porno scanners

I've been reading with interest the LRC columns and blog entries regarding the porno scanners. While I, too, refuse to subject myself to such grossly humiliating invasion, it seems that several of the LRC writers hold mixed and/or contradictory premises.

Either the airlines are private companies who are themselves victims of TSA rulings, or the airlines are quasi-private agencies subsidized by and complicit with the governmental rulings.

In the first case, it does not make sense to punish private companies who, in order to continue to provide any air service at all, are forced to obey the privacy-invasion laws. Yet Kathryn Muratore is doing just that (see here, here, and her new blog here for more background). In short, she purchased tickets to visit relatives across the country before she was aware that the TSA scanners would be introduced at the airport from which she was departing. When she found out about the scanners, she expected US Airways to either refund her ticket or to pay for a rental car so she could drive to a non-scanner airport and take a connecting flight. If airlines are private entities that are forced to obey the TSA rulings, then a ticket refund is a double-assault against the company.

She takes it a step further by expecting Orbitz, the third party agency from whom she ordered the tickets, to provide the refund. Orbitz has nothing to do with the TSA rulings; Orbitz is the "wrong tree" upon whom to express the grievances.

Then Muratore writes,

"Because of [my husband's] work schedule, he cannot commit to any of the alternative travel arrangements that I am considering. That is why, if I don't get a refund, I want to be on the same flight... with him."

Not only does she demanding an alternative flight, but she expects the alternative flight to be the same one that her husband is taking. Yet her original flight was separate from his, so why does it matter if her alternative flight is separate from his? Travel companies are in the business of selling tickets for airline flights, not in the business of coordinating family schedules.

Arthur M.M. Krolman further extends this punishment of a private company unrelated to the airline. As most families get to Disney World by flying, he writes to Disney,

“Now that you are aware that children must submit to nude photography or inspection of private parts in order to enjoy the Disney experience (and on the way home), your silence on this issue may be seen by many as passive agreement with this new pathway to your business…”

Does Dunkin Donuts passively agree with brute force because they serve food to policemen? Does Toys ‘R Us passively agree with public education because they sell toys to public school kids? Does Amazon passively agree to Marxism because they sell books on the philosophy? If Mr. Krolman is consistent, he will have to answer “yes” to these questions, in which case he will be unable to participate in society. Because our economy is mixed rather than free, I can think of no business that is entirely morally clear. Is Krolman willing to make the decision to leave society and live in a cave? To the extent that he is not, then, by his own admission, he is guilty of supporting government intrusion.

Disney responded to his letter, indicating that, "We don't regulate what the airport rules are regarding transportation security administration."

Krolman writes a second letter,

“My children, like thousands of others, are regularly enticed by Walt Disney Company advertising to request a trip to Walt Disney World. Other companies, like McDonald's for example, advertise to children too. Ronald McDonald, Playland and Happy Meals are enticing devices to get kids to plead with their parents to pay a visit to McDonald's. But unlike the Walt Disney Company, McDonald's Corporation does not solicit children to go to their business in full knowledge that they will be surprised with a dose of ionizing radiation and inspection of their private parts on the way. … Bad for business or not, and regardless of your power to regulate the United States government, please accept this letter as my request that you cease advertising to my children about visiting Disney World with no warning of the ionizing radiation and gross indecency they must expect on the way to your business at the airport.”

To be consistent, he will also have to assert that McDonald’s needs to warn kids about trans fats, video game packages need to warn kids about seizures, and cigarette packages need to carry a lung cancer warning. LRC ought to be ashamed for posting this drivel.

Both Muratore and Krolman hold that some aspect of the first premise is true. By appealing to the companies’ profit margins, they indicate their belief that the airlines are private industries that are concerned with staying in business.

Now, suppose that premise is not true. Rather, airlines and the travel industry are government-supported entities that benefit from privacy intrusions. Paradoxically, Muratore and Krolman also seem to believe this premise, as indicated by other parts of their letters. In her second letter to US Airways, Muratore writes,

“Don’t tell me that this is not your fault: you are, by definition, complicit in the TSA actions. The airline industry has not stood up for your customers in decades by allowing warrantless bag searches, the frisking of passengers with medical devices, as well as the more recent humiliations and inconveniences of airline travel in the last decade.”

I find it confusing that she acknowledges these repeated invasions, yet admits to subjecting herself to them by flying in recent years. If she were truly against fascist industry, as libertarians and/or anarchists allegedly are, it is unusual to become alarmed only now, only once the body scans are in place. All ye who bemoan the porno scanners, yet have continued to fly for the last 10 years—despite having to take off your shoes, despite having to throw away your water and lotion and scissors, despite being subjected to massive delays and exorbitant taxes and fees—it is through your continued financial contributions to the airlines, and therefore through your most grievous fault, that the privacy invasions and terrible service have escalated to the level of porno scanners. The time to boycott was years ago.

Another puzzling statement from Muratore’s second letter to US Airways is this: “… I was in tears earlier today as I contemplated the corner that the airline industry has backed me into.” If one admits that airlines are part and parcel with the government and that this is a bad thing, how can one in good conscience simultaneously act like a government collectivist by believing one is entitled to fly? In reality, the airline industry has not “backed” anyone into any corners. Flying is not a right, and we are not owed a flight just because an airline exists. I do not believe it is rational to mourn the loss of the ability to fly, when flying is not an entitlement in the first place.

So my appeal to LRC and Mises writers and readers is this:

Do you believe that the airlines are private companies, and are hapless victims of TSA policies? If so, it is morally appropriate for you to not fly in order to avoid the scanners. However, be aware that you are harming an innocent company by doing so.

Do you believe that the airlines are fascist companies, who are willing participants in the TSA scanner policy? If so, why have you continued flying for the last 10+ years, why do you eat agribusiness food, why do you have your money in banks that received bailouts, why do you buy cars from Chrysler and GM who received bailouts? It seems rather unprincipled to support these companies for so long despite the knowledge that they are part of the fascist system, and only to begin to complain once you are directly inconvenienced.