And You're Surprised? Airport Security

A few days ago, I wrote this in a Wall Street Journal online discussion:

I guess by now that everyone has forgotten that the private security that was in place at the time of the 9/11 hijackings was *successful* at enforcing the laws that stood *at that time*. It was legal to bring box cutters, remember? And the hijackers chose that because their preferred weapon (guns) were not legal and they believed that airport security would thwart any attempt to bring those on board. Remember? Then, TSA brought about Utopia by hiring the exact same people to enforce the laws. Okay, well, not quite utopia. At the same time, the laws changed to ban anything remotely resembling a knife, including nail files, Disneyland pocket knives, etc. They also stopped using the same inspectors using obvious fake bombs to test the screening. And to our knowledge, nobody has tried to hijack a plane since then, knowing that passengers probably wouldn't play dead as **they had always been instructed to do before**. Remember? Ceteris parebus, private security is at least as effective as a federal agency, and a lot more accountable after the fact. Hint to the perplexed: what happens to the USDA when beef marked "USDA Inspected" turns out to be tainted?

It looks like Alex Tabarok agrees with me. BTW, the vote was 1269 to 1105 in favor of privatization. I'm not surprised that it was that close, but it shouldn't have been. This is a situation where the Democrats have been cheerleading for expansion of federal powers on the basis that security is "so important that it can't be left in the hands of profit-seeking corporations", while Republicans have been cheerleading for expansion of the security apparatus because 9/11 justifies everything.

When they both agree, we should be afraid, very afraid. After all, look how many of them voted Clinton Administration initiatives into law via the Patriot Act. Besides Ron Paul, did anyone vote against it? Certainly not Kerry and Edwards.