@sh76 saidThat sounds like a better excuse than " Hey, a bunch of Saudi Arabians could get on a plane with box cutters because it would hurt our bottom line to do more extensive checks or hire additional people".
I completely understand why you would say something like that. After all, you're not the one that was stuck on a TSA line for 4 hours.
That politicians can say something like that (i.e., "Susie Creamcheese can wait four hours on a TSA line at IAH and miss her flight because her sacrifice is a small price to pay for my achieving my political ends" ) is the best argument in the world that the government shouldn't run these things.
Having a profit based company do security doesn't sound like a great plan to me unless you think we should get rid of those "inefficient" local police forces.
@no1marauder saidAt least local police forces are run locally and people can complain to their town politicians if the police are inefficient. Can you imagine one federal authority running all police around the country?
That sounds like a better excuse than " Hey, a bunch of Saudi Arabians could get on a plane with box cutters because it would hurt our bottom line to do more extensive checks or hire additional people".
Having a profit based company do security doesn't sound like a great plan to me unless you think we should get rid of those "inefficient" local police forces.
Local police are one of the examples of things that simply cannot be privatized for practical reasons. Firefighting and road repair are two more. I get that.
1 edit
@sh76 saidWho do you complain to after you're dead because a for profit company considered their bottom line more important than public safety?
At least local police forces are run locally and people can complain to their town politicians if the police are inefficient. Can you imagine one federal authority running all police around the country?
Local police are one of the examples of things that simply cannot be privatized for practical reasons. Firefighting and road repair are two more. I get that.
For a notorious example, see https://engineeringcommunity.net/2025/05/10/ford-pinto/
@no1marauder saidDid we just switch to talking about COVID vaccines?
Who do you complain to after you're dead because a for profit company considered their bottom line more important than public safety?
For a notorious example, see https://engineeringcommunity.net/2025/05/10/ford-pinto/
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou sue if they committed fraud (including material nondisclosure in cases where that is actionable) or otherwise violated the law.
Who do you complain to after you're dead because a for profit company considered their bottom line more important than public safety?
For a notorious example, see https://engineeringcommunity.net/2025/05/10/ford-pinto/
In other cases, you complain to whomever is paying them, if a governmental agency is paying them.
In other cases, you stop using them or complain to the media. Or you can go on X or Tiktok and complain.
It's much more likely that they'll care about your complaint if it can hurt them financially. Go complain about bad government actions that killed people and see how much they give a damn.
Edit: I'm sure you can't stand Friedman, but in case anyone is interested, here is an interesting discussion of the Pinto issue.
1 edit
@sh76 saidIt's possible that we've reached a point where we must let the process work itself out. Trump is angry at Mike Johnson for blocking a plan that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, which means speaker Johnson must soon cave. I'm not happy with the way things are running either, but perhaps waiting for Trump v Johnson to resolve itself could be the lesser of multiple evils.
You sue if they committed fraud (including material nondisclosure in cases where that is actionable) or otherwise violated the law.
In other cases, you complain to whomever is paying them, if a governmental agency is paying them.
In other cases, you stop using them or complain to the media. Or you can go on X or Tiktok and complain.
It's much more likely that they'll ca ...[text shortened]... ally. Go complain about bad government actions that killed people and see how much they give a damn.
@sh76 saidNone of those remedies are adequate and it is perfectly plausible, no inevitable, that for profit companies will care more about their bottom line than safety.
You sue if they committed fraud (including material nondisclosure in cases where that is actionable) or otherwise violated the law.
In other cases, you complain to whomever is paying them, if a governmental agency is paying them.
In other cases, you stop using them or complain to the media. Or you can go on X or Tiktok and complain.
It's much more likely that they'll ca ...[text shortened]... here is an interesting discussion of the Pinto issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I
I disagree that political pressure does not effect governmental actions and I think that to say otherwise is to ignore a lot of history.
I have no interest in a Friedman video; I'm well aware of the laissez faire worshippers opinions on such matters. Quite frankly, they are wrong on matters of public safety being enhanced by minimal government regulation.
1 edit
@mchill saidTrump had signaled disagreement with the Senate's kicking the can down the road compromise which probably emboldened House Republicans to reject it. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-killed-tsa-funding-deal-112559372.html
It's possible that we've reached a point where we must let the process work itself out. Trump is angry at Mike Johnson for blocking a plan that passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, which means speaker Johnson must soon cave. I'm not happy with the way things are running either, but perhaps waiting for Trump v Johnson to resolve itself could be the lesser of multiple evils.
He's now declared yet another bogus "national emergency" which he absurdly claims gives him authority to pay TSA workers. As no one seems to be disadvantaged by this illegal act, however, it's probable it won't get effectively challenged in court.
1 edit
@sh76 saidPrivatization of essential services in other sectors of the economy have not worked well. It's particularly bad at the Pentagon. In the end, they run more expensive and bidding processes are manipulated. Legal solutions take too long to play out with damage already done. The government still runs the show, behind an extra layer of red tape that is easily corrupted.
Then the remedy is to use antitrust laws and bidding processes to avoid single-company monopolies - not to have the government run everything itself.
@sh76 saidWhat's to know? Ford decided the human cost would be less than the cost for them to fix the problem. That's corporate 101. Having for profit companies run anything involving humans ends badly for humans. Consider why your healthcare costs are totally out of whack with most of the rest of the first world...
You sue if they committed fraud (including material nondisclosure in cases where that is actionable) or otherwise violated the law.
In other cases, you complain to whomever is paying them, if a governmental agency is paying them.
In other cases, you stop using them or complain to the media. Or you can go on X or Tiktok and complain.
It's much more likely that they'll ca ...[text shortened]... here is an interesting discussion of the Pinto issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I
@no1marauder saidI never said political pressure does not effect governmental actions. But there's not enough political pressure that comes from daily inconveniences to build the critical mass necessary for change. Sure there's a groundswell of publicity now because of the flat-out insane wait lines. But if the lines were "just" 30-60 minutes longer than normal, probably nobody would have been able to put enough pressure on the politicians to do anything about this on the federal level. A private company has to worry about dissatisfied customers. A government does not, unless and until they become so big that the media makes a big deal of it.
None of those remedies are adequate and it is perfectly plausible, no inevitable, that for profit companies will care more about their bottom line than safety.
I disagree that political pressure does not effect governmental actions and I think that to say otherwise is to ignore a lot of history.
I have no interest in a Friedman video; I'm well aware of the [ ...[text shortened]... frankly, they are wrong on matters of public safety being enhanced by minimal government regulation.
The Pinto case is an interesting issue. Friedman's position was that disclosure of the decision may well have been mandated and, if this rises to the level of material nondisclosure (which he denied being in position to judge), then suing Ford would be appropriate.
But let's turn it around to you. What regulation would you suggest that would prevent the Pinto disaster? Surely it's impossible to make a car that can never explode. So what regulation can you pass that can prevent dangerous products from being made available to people?
@kmax87 said===What's to know? Ford decided the human cost would be less than the cost for them to fix the problem. ===
What's to know? Ford decided the human cost would be less than the cost for them to fix the problem. That's corporate 101. Having for profit companies run anything involving humans ends badly for humans. Consider why your healthcare costs are totally out of whack with most of the rest of the first world...
Every company and every person has to make risk/reward tradeoffs at some point.
How do you suggest mandating risk/reward tradeoffs?
@sh76 saidWhat I'm saying is having private for profit companies doing something as essential as screening airport passengers is so inherently dangerous that it should be rejected out of hand. This fundamental truth was brutally uncovered on 9/11/2001:
I never said political pressure does not effect governmental actions. But there's not enough political pressure that comes from daily inconveniences to build the critical mass necessary for change. Sure there's a groundswell of publicity now because of the flat-out insane wait lines. But if the lines were "just" 30-60 minutes longer than normal, probably nobody would have been a ...[text shortened]... hat regulation can you pass that can prevent dangerous products from being made available to people?
"Prior to September 11, 2001, airport screening was provided in the U.S. by private security companies contracted by the airline or airport. In November 2001, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was introduced to take over all of the security functions of the country's airports.[2] The TSA increased the number of security agents employed from 16,200 to 56,000 and increased their compensation. In addition, they reformed the training for these agents. Prior to 9/11, the security staff was generally undertrained with a reported training time of 12 hours; afterwards, this training was increased to more than 100 hours.[3] They also implemented verification tests of the training by projecting images of banned objects on machines to see if workers would be able to identify them.[1]
The actual process of security screening was revised as well after 9/11. Passenger pre-checks became standard[1] and the percent of baggage screened for explosives increased from an approximate 5% to 100%.[3] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport_security_repercussions_due_to_the_September_11_attacks
We really shouldn't even consider going back to such an obviously inadequate system just because of the political gamesmanship of one party on an issue that has nothing to do with the TSA is causing temporary delays.
I don't pretend to be an expert on car safety but if you had glanced at the article I linked to rather than immediately looking for a Milton Freidman rebuttal, you would have found this:
"Ford engineers weren’t oblivious to these risks. They proposed several solutions, including:
A plastic baffle costing approximately $1 per vehicle
Repositioning the tank above the axle
Adding reinforcement to prevent tank puncture
However, as court documents later revealed, management rejected these proposals, primarily to avoid production delays and additional costs, a decision that would have profound implications for public safety and corporate liability.
https://engineeringcommunity.net/2025/05/10/ford-pinto/
Your last sentence is a Strawman argument. There's plenty of dangerous products that I have no objection to the public being exposed to as long as the risks are openly revealed (I would include in that all recreational drugs). But capitalists shouldn't be the judges of how much security is available at airports based on their need to profit.
@sh76 saidExcept when you design a car with a fuel tank behind the rear axel which show in your own collision tests has a propensity to explode when rear ended above 25 mph. This is insane that anyone would defend some esoteric risk reward schema, when at the point of testing alternate solutions were available.
===What's to know? Ford decided the human cost would be less than the cost for them to fix the problem. ===
Every company and every person has to make risk/reward tradeoffs at some point.
How do you suggest mandating risk/reward tradeoffs?
But find some abstruse legal principal to defend the indefensible, cos what do lives cost anyways.
@sh76 saidGiven that a rear end collision above 25 mph would be pretty common, how about stipulating that no car should explode/catch fire if rear ended at any speed posted as legal in any state?
But let's turn it around to you. What regulation would you suggest that would prevent the Pinto disaster? Surely it's impossible to make a car that can never explode. So what regulation can you pass that can prevent dangerous products from being made available to people?