"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

It probably wouldn't be that hard to argue that this sort of law falls under the domain of regulating commerce.

They only have the power to regulate commerce among the states, with Indian tribes, and with foreign nations. How does air travel apply?

Even if you're going to use the wildly distorted "interstate commerce" view, there's still that nasty 4th Amendment there.

Also, if the government isn't personally searching you, (but instead telling someone else to search you) they can probably get around the fourth amendment,

No, they can't. There's nothing in the 4th Amendment allowing them to do it. Besides, they are doing it, directly. These are TSA employees.

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Yeah, Fisher pled guilty, too. I don't know what's up with that; if you're just going to plead guilty, how do you expect to change anything? If you're going to fight what you consider to be a bad law, dammit, get in there and fight it!

Well, I would say that criminal trespass is a good law, and they had him dead to rights. He was asked to leave and refused--case closed.

 

[shanek]

Well, I would say that criminal trespass is a good law, and they had him dead to rights. He was asked to leave and refused--case closed.

He was asked to leave by the government, and not the airline he was there to do business with. Why do you people keep ignoring that?

 

[The Fool]

So whats the plan shane?....Tell he american people that if elected you will do away with all airline security?.....Good luck getting your vote up from 0%.

 

[Grammatron]

He was asked to leave by the government, and not the airline he was there to do business with. Why do you people keep ignoring that?

How do you know the government does not speak for the airline(s) on the matters of security at the airport?

 

[Leif Roar]

He was asked to leave by the government, and not the airline he was there to do business with. Why do you people keep ignoring that?

Because as it is the government who owns and runs the airport and the airlines merely rent services there, the security of the airport is the government's responsibility.

When you buy a ticket with an airline, part of the agreement between you and the airline is that the airline will transport you from airport A to airport B at a given time, as long as you, among other conditions, get to the gate on time. It's your own responsibility to get to the gate on time; the airline has no responsibility to ensure that, and neither does the government.

If you behave in a manner that directly prevents you from getting to the gate, that is your own damned fault. There's no difference between being prevented "by the government" from getting to the gate because you make a scene in the security control and is refused admission to the transit area, and of being prevented "by the government" by being stopped for drunk driving on the way to the airport.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I must say, Shane, you choose some very perculiar poster boys. Do you really think people will be won over to the Libertarian cause by a selfish prat who behaves like a jerk in an airport?

 

[mgidm86]

I like the criminal trespassing law myself, as I use it sometimes where I work. If someone won't leave I tell them that since they are refusing my wish for them to leave our establishment that they are now trespassing and I can have them arrested for it. I've never actually had to test this out by calling the police, as the threat usually gets people to leave. If not then I simply remove them myself

Kanning's demonstration was part of a larger effort by Libertarians to promote their belief in individual freedom and limited government. Others planned to start a private mail service, to call attention to the federal government's monopoly on first-class mail delivery, and sell bottles of liquor, in defiance of state liquor laws.

Although I'm all for smaller gov and I like some Libertarian views, this just made me chuckle.

As far as gov overstepping their duties when it comes to airport security, I'll have to give it more thought.

 

[shanek]

How do you know the government does not speak for the airline(s) on the matters of security at the airport?

Because the very idea is ludicrous. If the airlines already wanted this as a matter of security, there would have been no need for the government to step in at all, much less create an entire department to do it.

 

[shanek]

If you behave in a manner that directly prevents you from getting to the gate, that is your own damned fault. There's no difference between being prevented "by the government" from getting to the gate because you make a scene in the security control and is refused admission to the transit area, and of being prevented "by the government" by being stopped for drunk driving on the way to the airport.

Uh, yes, there is: if you're driving drunk, you're putting others at risk. Not so here.

 

[shanek]

I must say, Shane, you choose some very perculiar poster boys. Do you really think people will be won over to the Libertarian cause by a selfish prat who behaves like a jerk in an airport?

Selfish??? SELFISH??? Wanting freedom is selfish? Wanting to travel around the country without some government agent saying "papers, please" like they do in communist and fascist countries is selfish? And in what way was he behaving like a jerk? For wanting to peacefully board a plane he had a ticket for without having his government violate their own Constitution?

Have you people really become this jaded? Have you come to have so little regard for freedom?

How can ANYONE defend this barbaric practice of the government?

 

[shanek]

I like the criminal trespassing law myself, as I use it sometimes where I work. If someone won't leave I tell them that since they are refusing my wish for them to leave our establishment that they are now trespassing and I can have them arrested for it.

As I pointed out above, it's only criminal trespass if they come onto your property in order to commit a crime.

 

[Rob Lister]

As I pointed out above, it's only criminal trespass if they come onto your property in order to commit a crime.

I've got to hand it to you Shane, you do good work.

Before coming to this forum, before reading you, I had a mild interest/like for the libertarian perspective.

Now I have none at all.

This most recent rant of yours has to be one the most idiotic examples of libertarian promotion I have ever seen, and I've seen a few.

Thanks.

 

[Leif Roar]

Uh, yes, there is: if you're driving drunk, you're putting others at risk. Not so here.

What relevance does that have to the points of my post: that the government is responsible for the security at airports, and that if you behave in a manner that you know (or should know) will prevent you from getting to the gate, it's your own damned fault?

(Of course, from the point of view of the people who are responsible for the security, letting someone pass through a security perimeter unchecked does put other people at risk. They can't know wether a particular person is a threat or not.)

 

[Ian Osborne]

Selfish??? SELFISH??? Wanting freedom is selfish?

Holding up other passengers while he grandstands is selfish.

Wanting to travel around the country without some government agent saying "papers, please" like they do in communist and fascist countries is selfish?

He can travel around the country as much as he likes. He just can't fly without agreeing to subject himself to security checks.

And in what way was he behaving like a jerk? For wanting to peacefully board a plane he had a ticket for without having his government violate their own Constitution?

See above.

Have you people really become this jaded? Have you come to have so little regard for freedom?

No, but we're happy to give up a little freedom for the greater good. I, for one, don't think airport security checks are unreasonable.

How can ANYONE defend this barbaric practice of the government?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Libertarians have some good ideas, and reading your posts has made me think about the role of government in modern society, but you make a fool of yourself when you advertise your lack of perspective like this.

 

[richardm]

I've been lucky enough to fly in small aircraft from small airfields. There was no security presence there whatsoever.

Is there anything that would stop airlines doing the same thing? If necessary, there must be plenty of spare land in the USA. Couldn't a few of them get together and build a runway and fly in and out of there without government interference?

 

[shanek]

What relevance does that have to the points of my post: that the government is responsible for the security at airports, and that if you behave in a manner that you know (or should know) will prevent you from getting to the gate, it's your own damned fault?

Because the issue here is why and how is the government responsible for the security at airports, as opposed to the airline companies. Also, you brought up the issue of personal responsibility. Well, that only comes into play, at least in a free country, if you endanger or threaten others. He did neither.

(Of course, from the point of view of the people who are responsible for the security, letting someone pass through a security perimeter unchecked does put other people at risk. They can't know wether a particular person is a threat or not.)

Again, that's fascism, and completely counter to the Fourth Amendment.

 

[shanek]

Holding up other passengers while he grandstands is selfish.

He didn't do that.

He can travel around the country as much as he likes. He just can't fly without agreeing to subject himself to security checks.

Ah. Obviously some strange usage of the word "agree" there.

Why is he required to subject himself to ID and searches? This is the question no one here seems to want to address.

No, but we're happy to give up a little freedom for the greater good.

Are we? When did we vote on that?

Even if it's true, it's irrelevant. This isn't a democracy, where the tyranny of the majorit rules. We're a Constitutional Republic, and our Constitution says that they can't do that without probable cause.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Libertarians have some good ideas, and reading your posts has made me think about the role of government in modern society, but you make a fool of yourself when you advertise your lack of perspective like this.

I say the lack of perspective is yours, in refusing to see the threat to our freedoms that this comprises. Maybe if you talk to some of the people who were lucky enough to escape Castro's Cuba you might have a little better understanding of how this isn't just a minor little thing. You're basically considered guilty until proven innocent.

Think of it: they arrested him for CRIMINAL TRESPASS. By the definition I posted, which no one here has refuted, that means that he was attempting to commit a crime on the property. They already assumed he was going to commit a crime! And it's up to him to "prove" otherwise, by submitting to a search and ID check that doesn't do the first thing towards actually making anyone safer.

 

[Ed]

Shane,

It appears to me that this guy did, in fact, grandstand. If he was there to make a point he surely lost it when he plead guilty. So, net, the guy hopped about, disturbed the Wa of other passengers, predictably got arrested and then folded. He proved what again?

Have you ever considered the possibility that your raising the Constitution to the status of inviolate holy book might be flawed?

 

[Thanz]

Because the clause is only there because of government threats.

This is a claim that just screams for evidence. What proof do you have that the only reason for the clause is government threats? Further, what proof do you have that the airlines would not be doing the same security checks if the government was not?