I asked you if it matters to you, so therefore it's relevant for me. You keep throwing in this - I'd have to call it a phobia at this point - about "imposing" solutions on the American people, when I haven't suggested any such thing. What I'm trying to get from you is what you think our goals should be. Once we've determined that, then we can worry about how to get there.
It's not a "phobia" about imposing solutions, it's a matter of understanding what the real problem is. We're essentially presented with two possibilities here. One, there's some secret (or not-so-secret) cabal of power-brokers in Washington that are conspiring to gradually strip us of our rights and freedoms, against our wills. And this is not an uncommon position, especially around here - you can see the strains of that in the posts suggesting that "they" are "conditioning" us to become used to random searches, and so forth. Or, alternately, as I suggest, our rights and freedoms are gradually being stripped because that's what people want. They may not think that's what they want, but when it comes to security versus freedom, they will invariably choose security, or the appearance of it, over freedom.
Now, in both cases, the end result is the same, even though they are two entirely different problems, with two entirely different solutions. The solution to the first problem...well, you get your guns out and you go root 'em out. But the second problem is much more subtle and much more difficult to solve. And that's what we're faced with - there's no grand conspiracy, IMO, to take away your rights. Your neighbors are simply thinking with their bellies instead of their heads, and the solution to that problem can only be to educate them. Nothing else can stop what you and I might see as continuing violations of the Constitution.
Would you say it's doing so now when it says that exercise of what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom shall be conditional upon "consensual" searches?
Saying "what would otherwise be a generally unrestricted freedom" is sort of like saying "if it wasn't for disease and old age, I'd otherwise generally live forever" - while it is trivially true, it has never been that way, and it never really will be that way. As I've been repeatedly trying to show, no freedoms are ever absolute. No freedoms have ever been absolute. And no freedoms can be absolute, in a society of more than one person. Libertarians (of which you are not one, of course) take an expansive, broad view of freedoms, but the "no force or fraud" principle still serves to draw a line, ruling some actions in pursuit of freedoms out-of-bounds, and not permissible by society. Others take a more constrained view of the proper exercise of ones liberties. But everyone recognizes that a line must be drawn, causing some activities to be impermissible. And once we all realize that, then the debate becomes about where we should draw that line, not whether we should draw that line.
So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?" And I say, rights are meaningless to dead people. The right to life of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center outweighs the right of the passengers to be free from any search. In this case, I am prepared to draw a limited exception to the 4'th Amendment, in the name of life. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," as Justice Jackson famously said, and there is little point in adhering to a slavish interpretation that causes the deaths of countless thousands - it is, after all, intended for the use of the living, not the dead.
Obviously, this will not be a popular position with the "let justice be done, though the heavens fall" set. But here we have yet another case of one right conflicting with another, and I say that life is that most precious right of all. Without it, all other rights and freedoms are meaningless.
Then I guess I won't get customers to fly on Air Inquest with that approach. Such are the ways of the free market.
Something makes me think the free market will prevent Air Inquest from even getting that far - I predict Air Inquest will have a great deal of trouble obtaining insurance. In which case, Air Inquest will end up instituting searches anyway, and then what's the practical difference between Air Inquest and airlines now? ;)
We're essentially presented with two possibilities here. One, there's some secret (or not-so-secret) cabal of power-brokers in Washington that are conspiring to gradually strip us of our rights and freedoms, against our wills. And this is not an uncommon position, especially around here - you can see the strains of that in the posts suggesting that "they" are "conditioning" us to become used to random searches, and so forth. Or, alternately, as I suggest, our rights and freedoms are gradually being stripped because that's what people want. They may not think that's what they want, but when it comes to security versus freedom, they will invariably choose security, or the appearance of it, over freedom.
Actually, there is a third possibility, and that is that those in power do things to increase their power, not because they've "conspired" to do so, but because birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and politicians gotta control everything they can get their grubby hands on - and because the people are insufficiently opposed to it to want to go through the effort of putting a stop to it. And even if the first possibility you mentioned is correct, I'm not sure I'd agree that going in with guns blaring is the most advisable option, as I think you can see. But all that's neither here nor there at this particular juncture, because right now I'm interested in your views of how it should be. We'll deal later with the question of how to get there, if you're still so inclined.
But everyone recognizes that a line must be drawn, causing some activities to be impermissible. And once we all realize that, then the debate becomes about where we should draw that line, not whether we should draw that line.
I'd rather hear your thoughts on where to draw the line on government's actions. Hopefully I don't have to ask you whether the line needs to be drawn.
So, the question is really "is this interpretation of the 4'th Amendment appropriate? Is it practical? Is it moral?"
Silly me, I thought the question was "Is this interpretation correct?"
The right to life of the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center outweighs the right of the passengers to be free from any search. In this case, I am prepared to draw a limited exception to the 4'th Amendment, in the name of life.
So now you're making it clear that it's not a question of "interpretation" at all, but a question of whether to violate the Constitution. After all, if you speak of a "limited exception", then you're acknowledging that there's something to be excepted from. Seems you've answered the question I had for you earlier. And is it a justified violation? You asked me, "What's the practical difference between Air Inquest and airlines now? ;)" I'd like to turn that question upon you: What is the practical difference between a free-market system and a centrally commanded system of airline security, in terms of the safety it would provide? You've implied that insurance companies and other annoyances would constrain airlines to do things much the same way they're doing now. So is the difference enough to warrant a cafeteria approach to the Constitution?