Jacob Sullum assumes the position and prepares to be subway searched.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Government is ALWAYS about closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped. The corollary is government ALWAYS fights the last war.
Rhywun | July 29, 2005, 12:58pm | #
But since they've said they are randomly searching bags for bombs, mentioning in passing that of course they will also arrest anyone found with drugs, an unlicensed gun, or other contraband, the searches probably will be upheld.I'm no constitutional scholar, but frankly I don't understand how the material that they're searching for affects the legality of it. Is it a matter of degree or urgency (i.e. bombs are more "immediately" dangerous than guns, therefore the search is legal)? What is special about bombs that allows the state to presume all citizens are guilty?
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:09pm | #
"It has to be that way if the city is going to argue in court that the searches are voluntary (a dubious claim, given how important the subway is to the average New Yorker)."This is a very important principle here. I want all of you libertarians to groove on it for a few minutes, and on the fact that it is physically possible not to ride the subway in New York, and that making that choice is even easier for someone with a lot of money.
NoStar | July 29, 2005, 1:12pm | #
The volunteerism may be related to Stockholm syndrome. It gives the volunteer (at least in her own mind) the opportunity to ingratiate herself to the men holding the guns.Or perhaps, long dormant classroom suck-ups have now found an adult expression of their suckupancy.
Jeff | July 29, 2005, 1:15pm | #
Mild threadjack:Today is Sysadmin Appreciation Day
http://www.sysadminday.com/
Kudos to the Man Behind the Curtain at Reason.
Rhywun | July 29, 2005, 1:17pm | #
joe,I can't believe you--of all people--are encouraging liberty-minded people (well, rich ones) to forsake public transit, just to support your position that's there's nothing wrong with the state presuming you guilty with these searches.
Then again, we may be on the road to becoming aquiescing and collaborating Frenchmen.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 29, 2005, 1:19pm | #
"..Eve Holbrook, at a station in Brooklyn. Having a police officer paw through her belongings "gives me a sense of comfort," she said. "I went up there of my own free will."I don't pretend to understand Holbrook's motivation.."
I'll pretend. Some people are perfectly happy being sheep. Unfortunately, these people vote according to the instruction of their masters.
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:20pm | #
Bity your tongue, Rhywun! I'm doing no such thing!My point goes to the definition of "freedom," "volunary," "rights," and "liberty."
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:22pm | #
I once drove through at traffic checkpoint at 3:00 AM on the one Saturday evening when I managed not to have anything in my system.You'd better believe I was happy to volunteer for that.
"How's everyone doing tonight?" Sniff sniff sniff.
"Just fine, officer! How are you!?!" Grin grin grin.
Jason Ligon | July 29, 2005, 1:24pm | #
joe:I agree that there is a lot in that quotation. Does it imply that the more publicly funded services people use, the more subject to arbitrary whims of government they become? That is certainly my belief. It just really blows when the alternatives all involve a tithe, too. The taxi medallion for authorized cabs comes to mind as a particular stinker.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 29, 2005, 1:26pm | #
""How's everyone doing tonight?" Sniff sniff sniff."They had a sniffer dog going around your car?!
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 1:26pm | #
I want all of you libertarians to groove on it for a few minutes, and on the fact that it is physically possible not to ride the subway in New York, and that making that choice is even easier for someone with a lot of money.Random searches of innocents are okay. . . . the dead Brazilian in London was asking for it. . . . so long as the people with money are comfortable, who cares. . . . HOLY SHIT!!! Some Neocon Caricature has murdered Joe and stolen his posting identity! Anybody know of a NON-corrupt cop I can report this to?
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:31pm | #
MNG, "They had a sniffer dog going around your car?!"No, that was the cop!
Rhywun | July 29, 2005, 1:32pm | #
joe,OK... maybe I misread it. But I have to point out that private forms of transportation are just not an option for maybe 95% of the subway and bus riders of NYC. I could helicopter ten minutes to work every day, too, but that's no more a real option than buying a car and a place to put it or walking.
Jason, I think the quote means that "voluntary" and "free" exist along a continuum, and the level of freedom one can have can be effected by the organization of society, not just compulsion by the government.
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:34pm | #
Are you saying, Rhywun, that a Manhatten resident might not be free to avoid taking the subway, even though she isn't being coerced by the government to take it?I think the answer is fairly obvious, yet this seems to be a controversial principle round these parts.
Alla | July 29, 2005, 1:35pm | #
"I'm no constitutional scholar, but frankly I don't understand how the material that they're searching for affects the legality of it. Is it a matter of degree or urgency (i.e. bombs are more "immediately" dangerous than guns, therefore the search is legal)? What is special about bombs that allows the state to presume all citizens are guilty?"I think it's because the Supreme Court ruled that such searches were justified because they are an attempt to thwart terrorism. So, seizing drugs, etc. isn't really going to stop terrorism, so the search is no longer justified.
Larry A | July 29, 2005, 1:35pm | #
Why would anyone volunteer to be searched?Let's say someone in the subway has ten kilos of C-4 and several boxes of nails in a fanny pack. For maximum effect he or she might want to detonate it at a location crowded with both innocent civilians and law enforcement officers. Where might that be?
The security bag-search checkpoint?
Freeman | July 29, 2005, 1:36pm | #
joe makes a good point about the nature of freedom. The searches are entirely voluntary in the sense that it is within the power of any individual to avoid them. There is nothing in the definition of freedom that is contingent upon the difficulty of exercising those freedoms.However, while this remains as a philosophical point, trying to apply this reasoning to a practical issue is always suspect. One could just as easily argue that someone putting a gun to your head and demanding your action isn't a violation of liberty because you could always choose to die rather than perform the action in question. Or, in a parallel formulation, that a government's policy can never violate a citizen's rights since by living in the county the citizen is in a sense aquiescing to a contract with the government, and any good libertarian pretty much agrees that two parties can put whatever the hell they want as conditions to a contract as long as they both agree.
So, while joe's point is technically true, i think we all loose a lot when we discount the value in arguing that alternative government policies would be more "libertarian" and thus preferable; the current policy is a infringement upon the idea of a free society, not freedom itself.
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:37pm | #
"Some Neocon Caricature has murdered Joe and stolen his posting identity!"Jennifer, you're only saying that because you hate Jews.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 29, 2005, 1:38pm | #
Sorry for this being OTS, but I remember reading many years ago about a teacher being arrested for having just one seed in his car.Does anyone know if a dog can pick up something that small?
joe | July 29, 2005, 1:39pm | #
The dog would have to have very small, delicate jaws.tap tap tap. Is this thing on?
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 1:41pm | #
Are you saying, Rhywun, that a Manhatten resident might not be free to avoid taking the subway, even though she isn't being coerced by the government to take it?Joe, you're starting to sound like those Randroids who insist that no worker protection laws are necessary since the workers are always free to find another job.
And I only hate Jews because they won't let ME into their club. I already control the world banking and media industries--what the hell more do they WANT???
Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 1:41pm | #
I want all of you libertarians to groove on it for a few minutes, and on the fact that it is physically possible not to ride the subway in New York, and that making that choice is even easier for someone with a lot of money.It's a pretty well-grooved point. NYC holds a government monopoly on the most popular method of transportation in the city and artificially restricts the markets for all the alternatives. This is bad.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 29, 2005, 1:41pm | #
Or the seed would go right up its nose and then the pooch will be begging for Scooby-snacks for the next three hours..Evan Williams | July 29, 2005, 1:42pm | #
But if the illusion of security won't fool the terrorists, at least it fools the public. "I see it also as giving some comfort to the riding public," said Commissioner Kelly. "Reassuring the public is a legitimate objective," said RAND's terrorism expert. "You might say, dismissively, it's just to make people feel better. But we shouldn't dismiss it."Bullshit. By that logic, we should simply ratchet the terror alert level down to green [COMPLACENT]. That'd "reassure the public", wouldn't it? How about we tell everyone that we've killed all the terrorists. None left! Got 'em all, we just used one of them Raid "Terrorist Hotel" traps. Kills trrrsts dead!
At the same time, whenever they ratchet UP the terra level, they tell us to be "vigilant". Um, so, which one is it, boys? Which is a legitimate function of gubmint: to scare us into being vigilant, or to calm us into complacency? Ugh. These idiots will say just about anything to justify their stupid schemes.
Good point Evan. It's all a sick cycle where the government just wants to do anything to make us "feel safer", and people encourage them by saying they feel safer with their bags being searched. I mean, I would definitely feel safer if the government watched me all day to make sure I wasn't building bombs.
Evan Williams | July 29, 2005, 1:48pm | #
Joe said,This is a very important principle here. I want all of you libertarians to groove on it for a few minutes, and on the fact that it is physically possible not to ride the subway in New York, and that making that choice is even easier for someone with a lot of money.Your implied comparison to the private sector is inapt. This is a public infrastructure we're talking about. Now, we can debate back and forth about whether the NYC subway system should be privatized, but, the fact is, right now, there is no room for viable competition, and the subway is, in effect, owned by all of us. Compare that to a private bus line, for example. It is owned solely by the company who runs it. Neither you nor I have any real stake in it, so we should have no say in it. At the same time, since it is not "public infrastructure", there is room for competition in the field.
Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 1:50pm | #
Assuming the local government doesn't restrict who can run private bus lines in the area, Evan. Then you lose the competitive aspect.Evan Williams | July 29, 2005, 1:51pm | #
Eric: the assumption of an unfettered free market was implied, yes...Jason Ligon | July 29, 2005, 1:57pm | #
joe:There are distinct concepts in play:
1) a word that means the opposite of "coerced". This is the freedom that libertarians are primarily concerned with.
2) a poverty of choices in a given situation. This is a secondary concern that libertarians in general believe is eliminated by rising tide factors.
The argument you will see around here is that you should never decrease freedom of the first sort to increase freedom of the second sort. There are arguments from principle and arguments from consequence why this maxim should be observed.
joe | July 29, 2005, 2:03pm | #
Evan,I was not commenting on transportation policy.
Jason L gets at it better.
metalgrid | July 29, 2005, 2:04pm | #
The analogy to searching those who volunteer to take the subway is to search those who take the roads. After all, they are both publicly owned avenues of transport, and if they do not wish to the searched, they can always chose to not use the public roads. Why the panic at blowing up subways in NY? They can just as easily blow up vehicles at busy intersections, thus justifying searches on public roads.I'm just curious, are there any privately owned roads that lead from one side of the state to the other in NY?
Rhywun | July 29, 2005, 2:07pm | #
joe,I see the point; but you're being pedantic. The only possible alternatives are walking and driving--and as soon as, say, 5% of subway riders took either of those options, you could no longer fit any more people or cars in the streets of Manhattan. So, for all intents and purposes, there is NO alternative to the train or bus.
ME | July 29, 2005, 2:08pm | #
"I want all of you libertarians to groove on it for a few minutes, and on the fact that it is physically possible not to ride the subway in New York, and that making that choice is even easier for someone with a lot of money."Ok i "grooved" on it.
Joe didn't specify where he was going with this but I will go out on a limb. I apologize if I miss his point and accidently argue to a strawman.
Is the rest of the arguement something like: "Just because it is possible for someone to not use a facility or accomodation doesn't mean the providers of that accomodation are justified in demanding anything they want as a condition of use. If that were the case then NYC would be justified in demanding commuters consent to have their stuff searched in exchage for being allowed to use the transit system." ?
Maybe Joe was thinking of using this line of reasoning for something like "Just because I am able to not enter the bar doesn't mean the owner has a right to demand that I consent to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke in exchange for being allowed to enter." Maybe this is an arguement for reconsidering libertarian concepts of "freedom of contract" altogether.
There are important differences however between the NYC transit system and the kinds of goods and services typically provided by the private sector:
- The NYC transit system is partially tax funded and residents are not permitted to refuse to contribute to it through taxes. Not so with most private businesses.
- If the city needs or has substantial use for a resident's property for a station or something the city will probably force him/her to sell for what the court deems a fair price. Even with Kelo this is less the case with most private businesses.
- It is virtually impossible for any entrepreneur(sp?) to start any enterprise that comes close to competing with the existing system. This is partially because of the way the city is set up and partly because of special legal priveleges given to the existing system (such as exclusive rights to provide bus service on public streets). Not so with most private businesses.
- Each resident is equally a rightful part owner of the transit system by virtue of being part of the public governed by the entity which set it up and maintains it through taxes and eminent domain. Not so with most private businesses.
Joe's arguement would be much stronger if not for these important differences.
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 2:09pm | #
Metalgrid--This whole business about private vs. government transportation misses the point. The Constitution restricts the actions of the government, NOT private individuals or companies. So if a private company owned the subway and wanted to conduct baseless, warrantless privacy-invading searches, that would be their right. But the government isn't supposed to search people without a warrant.
Evan Williams | July 29, 2005, 2:19pm | #
Joe,Nor was I referring to transportation policy. My points were fairl succinct: your inferred comparison between this situation and the common argument that libertarians often use regarding private sector regulation [nobody's forcing them to work there, etc.] is inapt. I stated why. ME outlined them a bit more clearly in his/her post above. So, what's your response?
joe | July 29, 2005, 2:19pm | #
Rhwyun, I am not being pedantic, I am pointing out the pedantry of others.I do not believe that New Yawkuhs are completely free not to take the subway. I do not believe the residents of coal mining company towns were utterly free to leave and start new lives elsewhere. I do not believe very poor residents of declining cities are free to move somewhere that they have no friends or family and start over.
I made the point to take exception with those pedants who make the latter two claims, who insist that government coercion in the only impediment to freedom, and that changing underlying social or economic conditions cannot possibly make anyone more free.
ME,
The points you raise, while true, are irrelevant to the experience of a person going about his life, and that is the appropriate criteria for judging freedom. Freedom actually exists in a person's life, or it doesn't. Hairsplitting like yours doesn't change the impact on people's lives.
Actually Jen, you're missing my point - that if they can search your bags on the subway, they can search your bags while you're out on any public property. The courts aren't going to help us on this one, and lacking any private roads/subways to fall back on, you are living in a police state. We've lost the war on terror and they have won.
keith | July 29, 2005, 2:23pm | #
and as soon as, say, 5% of subway riders took either of those options, you could no longer fit any more people or cars in the streets of Manhattan. So, for all intents and purposes, there is NO alternative to the train or bus.We also have the freedom not to live in New York City anymore, which seriously, is becoming a more attractive option every day.
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 2:24pm | #
Joe--So if you admit that New Yorkers, especially the poorer ones, are NOT truly free to avoid the subway, then why do you still favor allowing the government to conduct warrantless searches of subway riders which THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF admits will do nothing to improve safety?
Seriously, Joe, I'd understand it if you were one of those "Bush can do no wrong-Abu Ghraib's just a frat house-you're with us or against us" types, but I always thought you were most concerned with our society's most helpless people (even if I don't agree with your solutions on how best to help them). So what the hell's gotten into you lately?
let me amend my previous statement to be, "what freeman and jason ligon said".
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 2:33pm | #
Metalgrid-Ah, I see. And you're right. Ever since the random-bag-search story broke I've been unusually pessimistic and depressed about everything (which is odd because on a strictly personal level I've never been better--great job, great salary, great boyfriend, etc.), and I tried to figure out why, and then it hit me--though I've opposed almost everything that's happened here since 9-11, I opposed it in an academic way--it infuriated me to read about it, but I was not directly affected by it. And now I am.
I grew up believing that the main benefit of living in a free country was that, provided you hurt or disturbed nobody, the government would leave you the hell alone. None of this "Your papers, citizen," garbage. And that's all I want--I don't want handouts, I don't want laws forcing people to favor me for my gender or ancestry or anything, I just want to be left alone to live in peace. And now I can't. And neither can anybody else.
And although I am still young for THIS country, I'm kind of old to be starting over from scratch somewhere else.
Rhywun | July 29, 2005, 2:40pm | #
We also have the freedom not to live in New York City anymoreSez you. Well, technically you are right, I could move; but only at the risk of going batshit insane with boredom. (kidding! But I've lived in many places, and I was at near-depression levels in all of them until I moved to NYC)
Also, what Jennifer said. Especially the bit about being personally affected.
I don't think Joe is necessarily supporting the warrantless search policy; but rather is arguing against some other arguements which libertarians sometimes make. His argument is: just as New Yorkers should have the option of taking the subway without being unreasonably searched, so should certain disadvantaged people have better options than what they've got. Stay tuned for my next post.
Evan Williams | July 29, 2005, 2:43pm | #
"who insist that government coercion in the only impediment to freedom"Well, I would suppose that you and I have truly different definitions of "freedom". What do you consider an impediment to freedom? Anything that makes life tough for another person? I just don't know where you draw the line, Joe. Surely, if a private citizen steals my property, it's an "impediment to my freedom". But we can all agree that that is wrong and should be punished. No, government coercion is not the only impediment to freedom, but I find it hard to swallow that a coal company should be forced to do something---considering that the existence of that coal company-and the jobs that it offers-are voluntary in the first place.
Let's say there's a teenager who is unemployed. I open up a general store down the street, and offer him a job as a stockboy for $4/hr. Does that qualify as an "impediment to his freedom"? Of course not. If I never opened that store in the first place, he'd never even HAVE that opportunity to make that $4/hr. So how is it right to say that if I don't treat an employee or customer a certain way, I am "impeding their freedom"?
Evan Williams | July 29, 2005, 2:53pm | #
ME:Of course that's what he's doing. And his argument might be valid IF, and ONLY IF, the subway was privately owned. Joe wants to shrug off the differences between publicly and privately owned operations, but those differences are infinitely important. One operates at the whim of the market, the other operates on the backs of soldiers, guns, police.
friendofliberty | July 29, 2005, 3:04pm | #
It doesn't matter if the subway is privately owned if the NYPD is conducting the searches. The MTA runs the subway. The MTA is some kind of quasi-public entity but it doesn't search you, the NYPD does.ME | July 29, 2005, 3:06pm | #
Joe doesn't go into too much detail about the concrete applications of this idea but I'll consider the examples he brings up.Consider the case of a coal miner in an isolated town where the owner of the mine is the only employer. Lets say this person has no means of transportation except walking. His options are:
- Stay and work for coal miner
- Quit and have no income
- Try to walk to somewhere better and take substantial risk of dieing of thirst in a desert somewhere.
Joe's claim is, I think, that someone (the government if necessary) should try to give such people better options.
The question is then: Should the government do so? And if so by what means?
Someone who takes the hardcore "All taxation is theft" position could consistently argue "The difference is that virtually any govenment program to that end requires more taxes but refraining from conducting those warrantless searches does not"
Aside from that objection; it seems some government action to give such people better options is accaptable, even desireable as long it does not impose significantly on anyone else.
For now I'll remain agnostic on the soundness of the "taxes = theft" arguement and wait to see what others have to say.
zach | July 29, 2005, 3:07pm | #
i've found over the few weeks i've been reading H&R comments, i agree with most (not all) of joe's actual arguments, although i'm coming from very different ideals, and that these arguments don't actually conflict with my ideals. this is possible because most of his arguments occur on a very specific scale.then again, for that same reason, i can't tell for sure that his own ideals actually conflict with mine to begin with.
i do know for sure that joe looooves to argue.
joe | July 29, 2005, 4:00pm | #
metalgrid,"Actually Jen, you're missing my point - that if they can search your bags on the subway, they can search your bags while you're out on any public property." And yet libertarians want to privatize the streets to make us more free. That is, they don't want there to be public spaces in which the owner is bound to treat you like a free person.
Timothy | July 29, 2005, 4:03pm | #
Rhywun: Going to your original question, it's probably under the "incidental discovery" jurisprudence. If the police execute a warrant for your home looking for, say, stolen microfilm and happen to find your stash in a drawer in the process, they can bring you up on the drug charges as well.So I guess as long as the random, suspicion-free searches are legal the incidental discovery stuff will be as well. And, hence, these searches are completely crappy in every way: They won't stop an attack, they'll delay travel, and they infringe on the rights of the citizenry. Up yours, Bloomberg.
joe | July 29, 2005, 4:08pm | #
Jennifer, the question of efficacy is irrelevant here. I don't support ineffective practices by the government. If these are ineffective, they shoud stop. But that's irrelevant to the philosophical questions.You ask two of them. First, why do I support, in some circumstances, warrantless searches? Because I believe it's necessary under extraordinary circumstances, and bombs going off the subways counts. I know, we haven't had bombs in our subways, but London isn't exactly Jerusalem or Beirut.
Second, how I can support a policy that falls more heavily on lower-income people? With a heavy heart, actually. But social justice is just one of the legitimate goals the government has to pursue - national defense and public safety are others. Public goals have to be weighed all the time. In ordinary circumstances, privacy + social justice > national defense + public safety when it comes to random bag searches by the police. They may not right now.
Poor people took the brunt of the shit when we fought World War II, too. Ain't that a bitch.
zach | July 29, 2005, 4:10pm | #
And yet libertarians want to privatize the streets to make us more free.you're talking about the more extreme libertarians.
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 4:14pm | #
Jennifer, the question of efficacy is irrelevant here. I don't support ineffective practices by the government. If these are ineffective, they shoud stop. But that's irrelevant to the philosophical questions. You ask two of them. First, why do I support, in some circumstances, warrantless searches? Because I believe it's necessary under extraordinary circumstances. . . .You don't see any contradiction there, Joe? The GOVERNMENT ITSELF has admitted that these are ineffective. If you don't support ineffective government practices, then you don't support the subway searches. And yet you say you do.
JD | July 29, 2005, 4:16pm | #
Joe: There is such a thing as an easement, which provides for free movement across private property, so "private" != "lack of free movement". Actually, I suspect you already know about easements, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.But here's something else: almost all of the sidewalks in New York are already privately owned. And yet we don't see private security guards searching people on the sidewalk, or racist landlords refusing to let EthnicMinority people walk across their sidewalk, or $1000 tolls for using the sidewalk, or sidewalks in an unusable state of disrepair, or any of the other horror stories that various know-it-alls assure us are inevitable if we privatize public goods. Funny, that.
Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 4:19pm | #
"Actually Jen, you're missing my point - that if they can search your bags on the subway, they can search your bags while you're out on any public property." And yet libertarians want to privatize the streets to make us more free. That is, they don't want there to be public spaces in which the owner is bound to treat you like a free person.Depends on the libertarians. Some would prefer private spaces where the owner has to treat you as you wanted to be treated or lose out. I'm not sure how this is inferior to public spaces where the government doesn't treat you like a free person.
joe | July 29, 2005, 4:19pm | #
zach,"i agree with most (not all) of joe's actual arguments, although i'm coming from very different ideals, and that these arguments don't actually conflict with my ideals. this is possible because most of his arguments occur on a very specific scale."
Scale is important. People who think too big tend to make blood run in streets. Extremism in the defense of anything is extremism. Some people are ok with blood in the streets as long as their political principles aren't violated. It ain't me, babe.
Evan,
soldiers and guns and police. Oh my. :-)
metalgrid | July 29, 2005, 4:20pm | #
And yet libertarians want to privatize the streets to make us more free. That is, they don't want there to be public spaces in which the owner is bound to treat you like a free person.
Comment by: joe at July 29, 2005 04:00 PM
Actually joe, you're wrong. This libertarian thinks its alright for government to venture into keeping streets and transportation as long as it doesn't make it a tax payer subsidized monopoly by prohibiting private parties from owning and running the same. See if the government can keep a toll road or a toll subway operating at a profit the way a private company can.
Basides, I can't wait till winter in New England when every single person will be bundled up and layered up in clothing and watch the ridiculous searches just escalate.
joe | July 29, 2005, 4:21pm | #
JD,You would infringe on the property rights of private landowners and require them to grant the public easements, just to serve a social good like free movement?
Would you use soldiers and guns and police?
joe | July 29, 2005, 4:25pm | #
Jennifer, what the hell do you THINK has gotten into me lately?I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with subways.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and say the government should have greater lattitude in their security measures when they have a good reason to think someone's going to start bombing the subways, then when they don't.
See above, about blood running the streets vs. political principles.
But Joe, you didn't answer my question about the contradiction: the government itself has admitted that these searches will do NOTHING to make the subways safer. You said you don't support ineffective government programs. So why are you supporting a government action that is ineffective AND strips away an important civil liberty?
Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 4:28pm | #
Jennifer:Joe's not actually trying to argue on the merits of searches. He doesn't care. He's trying to score a philosophical point - that under some circumstances, a private organization could oppress someone. Say, some guy on a oil derrick in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico wants to quit because his boss is an asshole - and so his boss says, fine, go swim to shore - or threatens to throw him into the water.
I've gotten the impression from liberals and further-out lefties that they believe that if, omigod! a libertarian grants this point, the libertarian will break down, come to Jesus, and agree that yes, whenever a company does something that someone really doesn't like, the government should be able to force them to stop, because that's oppression, man.
Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 4:31pm | #
Huh, time stamps are kind of weird. I definitely didn't see Jennifer's post, backscroll, read, and post my response in under a minute.Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 4:38pm | #
Scale is important. People who think too big tend to make blood run in streets. Extremism in the defense of anything is extremism. Some people are ok with blood in the streets as long as their political principles aren't violated. It ain't me, babe.Joe, somehow even you don't strike me as the sort of guy who'd be cool with, say, interning anyone in NYC who looked Arabic, even if you thought it might might everyone else a little safer. Principles have to kick in at some point, unless someone's really just out for himself.
joe | July 29, 2005, 4:54pm | #
"the government itself has admitted that these searches will do NOTHING to make the subways safer"It really hasn't, afaict. It's stated that the searches serve a psychological purpose, not denied that they serve a security purpose.
Once again, the Reason writers are spinning this one very well.
metalgrid | July 29, 2005, 5:04pm | #
Say, some guy on a oil derrick in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico wants to quit because his boss is an asshole - and so his boss says, fine, go swim to shore - or threatens to throw him into the water.
See, I'd say this is his fault for not planning a contingency or not having it provisioned for in his contract.
It's something similar to what I continually accuse democrat nanny staters of doing - it they hadn't instituted safety warnings on everything and tried to protect everyone in a bubble, it would have resulted in a lot fewer people surviving through their stupidity and voting republican ;p It tends to leave them in a rather confused state.
zach | July 29, 2005, 5:08pm | #
Scale is important. People who think too big tend to make blood run in streets. Extremism in the defense of anything is extremism. Some people are ok with blood in the streets as long as their political principles aren't violated. It ain't me, babe.i never said it was a bad thing that most of your arguments occurred on a small scale. i just implied that it was a sign of how much you like to argue. ;)
seriously though, i agree. but our respective political principles are equally concerned with keeping the blood from running in the streets, so to speak. i just am of the opinion that these searches won't do it, and since they potentially infringe other rights, should thus be abandoned. some of your refutations of the classical libertarian arguments against the searches are thought provoking, as are other arguments you present in other threads, but in my mind, this is still the basic issue.
Rhywun | July 29, 2005, 5:36pm | #
the government should have greater lattitude in their security measures when they have a good reason to think someone's going to start bombing the subwaysAnd when exactly is that? When the government SAYS it is, because it's not like they're going to TELL us when they have information about a specific threat. I maintain that subway bombs in London, caused by what is, as far as we know now, a specific, local group of radicals who claim ties to al qaeda, yet said ties are unproven do NOT constitute a specific threat to NYC subways, New Jersey Transit trains, San Francisco busses etc. etc.
to elaborate, in my mind, the classical utopian-libertarian arguments don't really need to be defended, because that utopia is not going to happen and i'm not sure if i'd want it to anyway. i'm a libertarian in the sense that my political positions on various issues can best be generalized by my reverence for individual liberty, rather than "looking out for the little guy" (democrat) or "looking out for traditional values" (republican). how useful such generalization is in the first place is obviously questionable, but my point is that not every libertarian can be dissuaded by arguments against utopian ideals, when they're not actually related to the issue in question.
Jason Sonenshein | July 29, 2005, 6:05pm | #
People who think too big tend to make blood run in streets.Speaking of blood running in the streets, what if I slip and fall on blood in a public street? Can I sue the city or does sovereign immunity apply? If there's blood running in a private street, can the health department clean up the blood and then bill the street owner for the cost of abating the nuisance? Blood running in the streets is never good. In addition to being slippery, it can also be a health hazard.
Dave W. | July 29, 2005, 6:27pm | #
important principle . . . making that choice is even easier for someone with a lot of money.Well, this makes it more difficult to determine if a proposed law (or lack thereof) is freedom-maximizing, or pareto-efficient wrt liberty or whatever-the-correct-test-is-here. I don't like it.
Eric the .5b | July 29, 2005, 6:59pm | #
Speaking of blood running in the streets, what if I slip and fall on blood in a public street? Can I sue the city or does sovereign immunity apply?*snerks*
Paul | July 29, 2005, 7:23pm | #
This whole 'search' thing has been slipping in one way or another everywhere. Those of us in Seattle (Puget Sound) have been subjected to drug sniffing dog searches on all Ferry terminal. Booya, how you like us now, yo!Paul
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 7:39pm | #
Joe-Simply making people *feel* safer is not sufficient cause to erase part of the Bill of Rights and invade their privacy on a regular basis. It MIGHT be worth it to increase *actual* safety, but that's not the issue here.
You know, interning the Japanese made a lot of Americans *feel* a hell of a lot safer in World War Two (and the Japanese-Americans were far less credible a threat than our Muslims are today). Yes, there's a huge difference between interning a person versus poking through the stuff they're carrying on to public transport, but do you seriously think this will stop at just searching bags at the subways and buses?
You're one of the posters who is NOT a continuous apologist for the unconstitutional behaviors of this administration; you oppose it not merely on principle but also because you know it can be dangerous. And NOW, of all times, you advocate taking away people's rights, NOT in the name of safety but in the name of feel-good measures whose only benefit (and even then it's only theoretical ) is to increase people's faith in the VERY GOVERNMENT that's taking those rights in the first place?
And at this of all times in American history, do you think it's a good idea to encourage the attitude, "Hey, I need not worry or be on the lookout for anything dangerous because I'm being taken care of?"
Wow. Apparently the London bombing's got you scared you're willing not just to compromise some principles but abandon them altogether.
So seriously: if you like the subway searches because they make people FEEL better (even if they don't make them safer), then what would you allow the government do to make us FEEL better if when a suicide bomber sets himself off on a crowded street or in a crowded shopping center here or in Britain? Should we consent to random bag searches anytime we happen to be in a public place with a large number of people around?
Jennifer | July 29, 2005, 7:46pm | #
To summarize my last four questions for Joe:1. Do you actually think that merely searching the occasional bag carried on to public transport is as far as this will go;
2. Do you think that THIS of all American governments is the one to whom you want to surrender your rights for the sole purpose of making people FEEL better about the way things are being handled by said government nowadays;
3. Do you think THIS is the right time in our history where we can afford to deliberately give people a false sense of security; and,
4. If a suicide bombing occurs in just a random, ordinary crowd here or in London, would you advocate random police searches of the bags of people who are in similar crowds later?
joe | July 29, 2005, 9:16pm | #
Jennifer, if I didn't make it clear before, I don't believe the New York police are doing this only because of people's feelings. The fact that Jacob Sullum waived away the deterrent effect in his column doesn't necessarily make it so. You keep asserting that this is purely a psychological demonstration for no good reason.Now, for your questions:
1. I think "it," if we're defining "it" as anti-terror measures, has already gone quite a bit farther. I believe quite a bit needs to be pruned back, but I don't think it's very wise to treat every more-intrusive anti-terror activity exactly the same, as simply an advancing front to hold back. There are good actions and bad.
2. I've dealt with your "feel" argument. I find it wanting.
2, again, because you asked two questions. This is the American government we've got. Terrorists aren't going to take a timeout until the country smartens up and elects John Kerry and a Democratic Congress.
3. The "feel" thing again. Blech.
4. What's a random, ordinary crowd?
Jennifer | July 30, 2005, 10:45am | #
What's a random, ordinary crowd?Whatever the terrorists and/or the government say it is. Bomb goes boom at a supermarket--should we all have our bags checked before we buy groceries?
And since these searches are voluntary and no terrorist with a bomb will meekly hand his bomb-bag over to the cops, what effect other than psychological CAN this have? This will be just like gun control laws--the only ones who will obey it are the ones who aren't going to be killing anybody in the first place.
joe | July 30, 2005, 11:28am | #
"Bomb goes boom at a supermarket--should we all have our bags checked before we buy groceries?"Um, yes. Businesses and public buildings all over America, and Israel, check bags.
If you'd like to provide more examples of "random, ordinary crowds," I'd be happy to give you my, admittedly inexpert, opinion about appropriate security precautions.
Jennifer | July 30, 2005, 4:53pm | #
Businesses and public buildings all over America, and Israel, check bags.If the business owners want to check bags themselves, that's fine. When the cops do it, and they also arrest people for anything unrelated but illegal they find, that's not.
You also didn't address this point:
And since these searches are voluntary and no terrorist with a bomb will meekly hand his bomb-bag over to the cops, what effect other than psychological CAN this have? This will be just like gun control laws--the only ones who will obey it are the ones who aren't going to be killing anybody in the first place.
Do you recommend solving this problem by making the searches compulsory? Or do you think it isn't really a problem at all, since what REALLY matters is that giving up our rights like that gives some people a big psychological boost. Can you think of even one scenario where this "let me check your bags" request, even a compulsory one, will actually prevent a suicide bombing from occurring?
Bear in mind that in a lot of New York subway entrances, the underground turnstiles are close enough to the tracks that even on the outside of the stile, the impact of an exploding suicide bomb would easily funnel through the tunnels and demolish the track and train and kill a hell of a lot of people. Depending on the time, one single such explosion would kill far more New Yorkers than the four explosions did in London. And you can't realisitically have the searches outside because that would mean doing them on the busy sidewalks above.
thoreau | July 30, 2005, 6:03pm | #
joe-Israel can squeeze on the balloon by inspecting bags at malls, but they cannot deflate the balloon with defensive measures. In the end, we must either destroy (arrest or kill) our enemies or stop people from joining their ranks. The best way to achieve one or both of those goals is a matter that's debated endlessly in so many other threads. But let's not pretend that an open and free city can ever be secured against bombers.
And I say this as somebody who rides a subway to a big government facility every morning, and whose wife works in a very busy mall. You can squeeze the balloon away from me and my wife but the problem will just shift to other people. They can squeeze it away from themselves, but the problem will just come back to me. The only effective long-term solution is to go and find the terrorists, and change the situation so that they can no longer recruit as many people.
joe | July 31, 2005, 12:18pm | #
Jason, is this a bloody public street or a bloody private right of way that we're talking about? heh.Jennifer, "If the business owners want to check bags themselves, that's fine. When the cops do it, and they also arrest people for anything unrelated but illegal they find, that's not." I agree - I don't think thet police should be able to arrest you for what they find in one of these warrantless searches.
But the "voluntariness" of the searches is based on the idea that a rider consents by approaching the subway. In other words, it's a legal construct - someone with a bomb in his bag can't simply say no to the police, then board the train.
thoreau, the searches will certainly not end the threat of terrorism. But they're not supposed to. They're supposed to make it safer to ride the subways, and allow our society to function.
Jennifer | July 31, 2005, 12:24pm | #
But the "voluntariness" of the searches is based on the idea that a rider consents by approaching the subway. In other words, it's a legal construct - someone with a bomb in his bag can't simply say no to the police, then board the train.I'm not asking about legalese hairsplitting, Joe--I'm asking you to give me a situation where these voluntary subway searches will prevent a determined suicide bomber from blowing himself up in a location that will cause serious property or infrastructure damage and serious casualties. Bearing in mind what I've already told you about the many places in the subway system where a bomb can be outside the turnstile and the explosion will STILL cause serious damage to the subway and the people on it.
(One condition: when I say "imagine a situation where this would stop a terrorist," I mean a terrorist of at least average intelligence, not a Down's Syndrome idiot who would voluntarily hand his bomb over to a cop who asked him for it.)
thoreau | July 31, 2005, 2:49pm | #
They're supposed to make it safer to ride the subways, and allow our society to function.And if the terrorists can disrupt society by attacking subway trains, they'll attack people at subway entrances, or in commercial districts, or some other soft spot in a free and open city. Squeezing the balloon won't stop them from hitting us where it hurts. But it will create hassle and violate privacy. All pain, no gain.
Hyman Rosen | August 1, 2005, 4:10am | #
One thing that makes the subways different is that almost any part of it is a choke point. A sufficiently bad explosion would not only kill many people, which would happen in any sufficiently crowded space, but could also shut down a service used by millions of people every day. I think that qualifies it for extra security measures.Will the measures work? We'll see. Assuming terrorists aren't better at probability than anyone else is, they might believe that the searches are more efficaceous than they actually are. After all, if non-terrorists feel better knowing that the searches are happening, why shouldn't terrorists feel worse? Somebody explaining the laws of probability to them will help about as much as it does when the same laws are explained to people in casinos.
In any case, if the system becomes widely abusive, it will be stopped, because we have plenty of people in New York who are itching for that kind of fight. And for what it's worth, people are already subject to involuntary search by government employees, without any choice in the matter. I must serve jury duty. I must go to the courthouse for that. I must be searched when I enter.
Hyman, I agree that a subway would qualify for "extra security measures;" but these extra measures should be ones that actually work, not just intrusive, cosmetic "feel-good" gestures that won't stop a single terrorist, but WILL accustom Americans to subjecting themselves to warrantless, on-demand searches whenever a guy with a badge feels like it.