Nice move.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/13/texas-house-bans-offensive-security-p...

The federal involvement in the air routes began in the 1920′s with what they called “lighted air routes” for the USPS. They restricted private airlines from flying certain routes in favor of the Postal Service planes hired to fly air mail. That was unconstitutional. The unconstitutional moves have accrued from there — all for political purposes, from FDR, who sent money out for municipal airports to favored friends in exchange for support, to LBJ. Even if the TSA were constitutional, The fourth amendment REQUIRES a warrant for a search, a warrant issued by a judge, based on probable cause. What has happened here is what they call an “unconstitutional condition”, wherein the federal government stands in the way of your free egress and movement, and gives you the option of having your body groped or scanned — both violations of the fourth amendment and due process clause. A private paradigm would be much better. In this case, the airlines would be liable for any problems, they would be financially unable to fly without proper insurance, and the insurance companies would undoubtedly demand security, just like passengers would. BUT in this case, the security would be a VOLUNTARY system based on consumer demand, and would have to respond. Do we want MORE security? Let the market reflect what we want based on our free choices. Do we want less and more privacy? Only the market can respond in a way that fits our interests. The government forces itself on us, fails, and then demands more money. A private system could never do this.