Private firms should have a right to discriminate

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by browntwn, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. #1
    Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the Transportation Secretary's near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.

    Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.

    We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private firms - long denied the right - should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies.

    The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs skyrocket.







    This makes perfect sense to me.
     
    browntwn, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  2. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #2
    Good to hear.

    This is the source, and full transcript of the speech.

    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2005/cr012605.htm

     
    guerilla, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  3. guru-seo

    guru-seo Peon

    Messages:
    2,509
    Likes Received:
    152
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Ron Paul has been crying wolf for decades yet the sheeple just don't get it. That's the problem with visionaries, they try to make the blind see.
     
    guru-seo, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  4. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #4
    What an odd expression to describe Ron Paul. I'm glad I didn't make it I would be attacked.

    In case you don't recall, the moral of that story is:

    "Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth."
     
    browntwn, Jan 25, 2008 IP