Why I am a Radical Libertarian: Exhibit A

Molestation is the Price we pay for Civilization
TSA Creed

“Empowered Mom,” former TSA employee, tells us to Shut Up And Get In The Scanner. I must say, a fine piece of ranting from the mind of an authoritarian. Notice how “Empowered Mom” justifies her treatment of humans as sheep because of her moral judgments that disapprove of the size of the dildos that women carry in their luggage or the style of dress worn by some teenagers. “Empowered Mom” sums up her political philosophy thusly:

Flying is a privilege not a right. As such, it can be and is regulated. Requirements can and are set up to ensure that everyone who flies is safe. If you don’t like it, then don’t fly. You may not be as concerned as the next guy about the safety or you may be more concerned. Point is the job of TSA is to ensure the entire traveling public is safe not just you. TSA officers don’t care what you as an individual want, they can’t, it just isn’t possible. You may be ok with lax security but what about the next passenger who wants thorough security?

Your right to privacy isn’t being violated at all. You always have the option to drive a car, take a train, grab the bus or start rowing a boat. You do not have to fly, you just want to fly. The minute you decide you want to fly then you have to accept that security is involved and you are going to have consent and submit to it period the end.

This sort of collectivist drivel being spouted by a half-educated bureaucrat is the utter anti-thesis of liberal thinking. Contra this putrid Statist, the right to travel is not a fucking privilege. It is a basic human right that should have minimal duties or encumbrances attached to it. The mechanism for such travel should be delivered as a market good that makes use of the technology available at the time. For the collectivist, the intractable problem of individual preference in security is instantly solved by the free market. If there is a demand out there for security theater that includes molestation or naked body scanning, then there will be a BushCo-TSA Airliner that will arise to meet such a demand. For others whose preferences do not include being a cast member in a Porno Security theatric production as a requirement to travel, there will be other alternatives.

I’m amazed how often “free markets” are equated with “right wing.” If you actually want to see an example of right-wing thinking, I would suggest reviewing the thinking of “Empowered Mom.” The “progressive alternative,” which is to have a “TSA Privacy Czar,” is nothing but right-wing tripe as well that legitimizes the Status Quo. Here we see quite vividly how busting up the monopoly in “Airport Security” would be the actual democratic and left-wing resolution to this unconscionable infringement of liberty and privacy posed by this collectivization of security. To those who spit out that a free market in security is barbaric or reactionary, I would reply that I can’t think of anything more barbaric than a government that legally sanctions molestation as an imposed duty in order to exercise the “privilege” of travel. This is the type of stuff that foments revolutions…

5 thoughts on “Why I am a Radical Libertarian: Exhibit A

  1. I agree with you completely on the topic, but you got something messed up.

    Collectivism is the hallmark and conceptual core of the Left, not the Right. Socialist systems care only about the comunity as a whole, never about individual rights. And never about the things you mentioned there, liberty and privacy for individuals is meaningless for them — Only the good of the community as a whole counts.

    In case you are equaling fascism with the right, you got entangled in propaganda. You should check the history of it.

    A good book about the topic is Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik.

    Check out this link, there was a documentary made on that book.



    I still recommend the book itself tho. 🙂

  2. Society is a collective. Whether we want it organized top-down by an elite few mandating what the rest of us do, or whether we want it self-organized from the bottom up by the collective action of individual actors is the question. Historically, it was the political left that favored the latter solution while the political right favored maintaining the status quo (ie, further empowering the state).

    Only in the latter half of the 20th century did left and right really make a 180 to mean opposite of what they had meant before. In fact, I’d say “left” came to mean something completely different than what it had historically meant as politicos on both sides began to accept aggrandizement of state power as a matter of fact.

    You are using the terms “left” and “right” in light of statism itself. If you were to prefix “radical” on either of them, they strangely become the opposite, where the radical left wants to abolish the state and the radical right is indeed fascism.

    1. historically, the terms “left” and “right” derive from whether one politically opposed the Ancien Régime in France or supported it based on the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. The three revolutions in France changed the meaning of “left/right” a bit, because right wing based on preservation of the aristocracy of the Ancien Régime was an anachronism; right-wing became about preservation of “the Republic” while the left-wing split into authoritarian and libertarian elements in opposition to it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s