But I think you're actually right about this; my original argument ignored human psychology to an extent that makes it nonsensical. Actual threats are important, but so are perceived threats. It's not entirely irrational to protect against the things we fear the most, even if those aren't actually the most likely things to kill us.
This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living. I know a lot of people for whom urban living is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics. But so what? If they were to move to the city, they'd be constantly afraid. That matters. Rational or not, their perception greatly impacts their quality of life. And if you want those people to move back from the suburbs, then you need to address their concerns.
There is a reason, after all, that airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror.
While some people do stop living in cities out of fear, obviously most people do not, because otherwise they would not be cities. You could argue that the government needs to come in in a very heavy-handed way and say in order to assuage the fear of the minority, we must pat down everyone that lives in the city hourly and check for weapons. But we don't do that, because it is irrational and unnecessary, and people will take the amount of risk that they feel is comfortable. We trust people to figure that out for themselves.
With airplanes, before the doors were reinforced, the planes could be used as a weapon against people who weren't even flying. That represents an externality. That is a place for the government to come in and say "this is too dangerous to others who cannot protect themselves against this weapon by voting with their wallet". The people who are on the plane, however, can choose to pay a premium to fly on an airline with more stringent security procedures. If people care enough, they will do that. If they don't, they won't, and they should be allowed to make that determination for themselves.
If I don't see terrorism on my flights as a risk, I shouldn't have to socialize those who do. And alternatively, if I do see terrorism as a risk, I damn sure want better security procedures than what the TSA has on offer, and if there were a private market for better secured planes, I don't doubt for a second that it would be substantially safer than what the TSA is able to provide.
"You could argue that the government needs to come in in a very heavy-handed way and say in order to assuage the fear of the minority, we must pat down everyone that lives in the city hourly and check for weapons. But we don't do that, because it is irrational and unnecessary, and people will take the amount of risk that they feel is comfortable. We trust people to figure that out for themselves."
The reality in most large metros in the U.S. is that the core city competes with its suburbs for resources, the largest of which is people. The region I live in has 2.8 million people, only 300k of which live in the (widely-abandoned) anchor city that gives the region its name. Yes, people are figuring it out for themselves, to the benefit of some interests and the detriment of others. "Let the people figure it out" isn't very useful advice to the losers in that battle.
Like the airplane that was downed because a passenger felt threatened by a math professor solving equations? I'm sorry but catering to ignorance is not the way forward. We have real problems as a society, let's not solve imaginary ones.
There is no similar dynamic for cancer or car accidents.
>This also comes up a lot in arguments about city living ... is frightening to an extent that is not supportable by crime statistics.
The (other) problem with the "cities are statistically safe" argument is: you have to account for the presence of countermeasures.
Sure, the crime rate is about the same ... but that's only because of a) much denser police presence, b) locking up your stuff a lot more securely, c) being a lot more distrusting of strangers.
If you fail to keep up these measures, your fear of crime will be totally justified!
(You can think of it as being the opposite argument of "hospitals must be unsafe because so many people die there".)
PS: Hospitals are dangerous even for healthy people. Much like how trench warfare lead to the 1918 pandemic which killed between 50 and 100 million. Simply being around those with a compromised immune system represents a risk.
There is enormous support for terrorism and they have a lot of recruits. If they found something that worked, and nothing changed to make it stop working, you can bet they'd double down.
>PS: Hospitals are dangerous even for healthy people. Much like how trench warfare lead to the 1918 pandemic which killed between 50 and 100 million. Simply being around those with a compromised immune system represents a risk.
I'm aware, and yes, there's a tradeoff between the benefit of the hospital vs the risk of picking up something even worse. Point taken. But if you have a gunshot wound, you should probably go to a hospital. It would be a severe error of logic to say, "most gunshot deaths are in a hospital, so if I have a gunshot wound, I should stay away from a hospital" -- because that figure is an artifact of dumping a disproportionate fraction of living victims there.
It's likewise wrong to say, "cities are safe, look how the crime rate is the same as the suburbs" -- there is much more risk, they just work harder to control it.
The absolute threat is just not that high.
It's not a refutation to point to zero rampup after a failed attack.
Airplanes are such an attractive target for those who'd like to cause terror, because they're a favorite setting of terrorists - those in the media and government who sensationalize tragedies for their own benefit. These hucksters are the essential problem, and they need to be shunned, disempowered, and repudiated.
For the 0.01% who still will not fly... let them stay on the ground.
Take a lot of those Someones with a perception of rampant terrorists and security failures, you get a substantial group of people reacting to a false reality. And though false it may be, these Someones still vote, pay taxes and fly (or not) on those planes.
We don't really have the option to ignore them.
There is no need to ignore them, just make sure their voice matches their proportion of the population.
As for the exploding aircraft, as you seem to imply, airports and airlines have a vested interest in preventing that from happening. But unlike the TSA, they also have an interest in efficiency and happy travelers. And they're spending customer money rather than federal tax dollars.
So I'm for no government security, if that's not what the GP meant. But I doubt the airlines really want that, since it opens them up for liability if something were to happen.
I don't think that is true. Maybe the threat of kamikaze hijackings was behind some of the push, but it is far from the only reason.
Plus TSA isn't all that different from the old private security guard system we used have have pre-911. The extra screenings are entirely related to specific bomb--not hijacking--threats. Shoes off? because of the shoe bomber. No liquids because of the liquid bomb plot.
However, my point wasn't whether the TSA was created specifically for one type of attack, but that it was created for a problem that 90% solved to begin with and the remaining 10% could have been filled with government serving as intelligence and advisor (e.g. requiring airlines to reinforce cockpit doors, or informing them of specific plots or new techniques to defend against); which, of course, it was failing to do pre-9/11, but that's a separate problem also not solved by the TSA.
Sure, statistically more people die in car accidents. True. But each one of us has some measure of control over that. We all believe (even if erroneously) that we can avoid this because we control the wheel, and we can choose to pay close attention to the road and make good decisions and we trust in our own ability to avoid an accident.
In a plane, there is nothing we can do but pray. The outcome is in the hands of pilot and we can do nothing. And that's what's terrifying: not statistics, but helplessness.
Indeed, when I get in the car as a passenger with a young driver who I haven't driven with before, my misgivings are definitely greater than those I have getting on a plane. Same principle.
Of course, it is possible that most of them are correct. I would love to see data on the distribution of driving skill; perhaps most people are reasonably good or great drivers, but the presence of a small percentage of catastrophically bad drivers skews the average.
I know that when I think "drivers are horrible around here" I tend to be thinking of the ones that did something inconsiderate/dangerous/bafflingly stupid, not the vast majority who seem to get by just fine. And of the people with whom I've ridden, almost all of them drive fine, but I've got a couple of friends who I hesitate to get in the car with.
I, myself, have been hit head-on twice on a motorcycle in the last 10 years.
The first time I was lucky, had a split-second of warning, and managed to escape any major injuries.
The last time, on 2013-10-13, I ended up with two broken wrists, a broken leg, and numerous contusions, scrapes, and scratches (initially, they also thought my ankle and nose were broke). It was four months before I could walk normally (the first three I couldn't walk at all). Because of how my arms were wrapped up (from my fingertips to the upper bicep), I couldn't bend them at my elbows and couldn't even wipe my ass for the first two afterwards. After the surgeries on my wrist, I was at least able to do that. I wasn't allowed to lift anything over one pound for the first six weeks.
I now have a titanium rod ("intermedullary nail") from my right hip to my knee, two steel plates in my left wrist, and one steel plate in my right wrist.
My life was forever changed -- and I was the equivalent of a helpless baby for almost three months -- all because an 18-year-old kid was texting on his phone and made a left turn in front of me at an intersection.
I hope your wife's wrists eventually stop giving her pain. Mine is sporadic and intermittent but will likely never go away completely, so they tell me.
There is a reason we had security on airplanes before 9/11. We aren't willing to accept this risk.
Plus airplanes are a carnage and terror multiplier. A bomb that could take down a plane would do less damage on the ground. And people are irrationally fearful of flying. One 737 blown up every 3 months would still make flying less risky than driving, but it would send the airline industry into a tailspin and TSA would come back stronger than ever.