It's not just about perception, it is about a very practical difference. Public property isn't "partly owned" by all citizens the way, say, a husband and wife might both own the same bank account. Public property is owned publicly and administered publicly. You can't just demand your share of public property the way one party in a joint tenancy might. It's a very fundamental (and basic) difference.
True, but being public means you're entitled to use it. Where as if something is strictly private, you have no expectation of use. The airport is public. The TSA is a government organization.
Wrong. You agree to whatever the airline's predetermined policies are when you enter into the contract with them.
What's the contract then? Where are the terms of it? Despite what I can agree to with the airlines, the airport is public land and the TSA is a government agency. Therefore, there are still restrictions on what the government can do. As I said, your argument says that it would be fine for the TSA to randomly shoot people if they made the airlines agree to it. But that's obviously not the case, thus even in "contract" there are limits to what the government is able to do. You're arguing no limits of government force against the rights of the individual, which is a bit odd coming from a "libertarian".
But you're wrong about this. Once you enter into a contractual relationship with the airline, by buying their ticket, you agree to their predetermined safety procedures. Your chance to assert your rights passed after your purchased the ticket and thereby contractually waived those rights.
Incorrect, the unlimited right to contract is not observed in this country. We have right to contract, sure, but there are things you cannot transfer in contract. Yourself, for instance. You cannot sell yourself into slavery. Thus there is a hard limit on what can contractually be forfeited, meaning that there is always restriction.
This is a non sequitur. Once again, the Constitution doesn't protect the airline passengers from being searched by an airline when they have already consented to the search by buying the ticket. Your argument has already been attempted in the Hartwell case, and it failed. Look it up.
Whatever the government says it can and cannot do is not the case. Sure, all government can engage in tyranny. Because government does so does not excuse the exercise of tyranny. There is a limitation to the amount of force the government can use against the rights and liberties of the individual. That's all there is to it. The TSA being a militant arm of the government is thus restricted in how it can act against the rights and liberties of the individual. They cannot engage in aggressive, intrusive searches without evidence or reasonable suspicion. Trying to get on a plane is not reasonable suspicion. The people always have the right to secure themselves, their property, their papers, and their effects from unreasonable search and seizure by the authority. And nothing will EVER change that fact.
I don't think you get the libertarianism thing.
I'm not the one arguing against the rights of the individual and for infinite force being applied to the people by the government. That would be you.
This is not an issue of statism. I never defended the government's right to impose this restriction on the airlines. That is where a libertarian should be outraged. But once the airline has implemented the body scanner policy, even if the government forced it to do so, the passenger has not claim against the government. There is no standing! There is no rights violation! Learn the law before you spout off about it, please.
There are violations of rights. The Airlines may be forced to accept government intervention; but that doesn't make this unbridled against the people. There are things which cannot be transferred via contract, the airport is public property, the TSA government agency. It's not part of the airline contract to give away all your rights. You can't even give away all your rights. The ticket gets you onto a plane, that's it. The security isn't private, and not controlled by the airlines; but rather subjected upon everyone by the government in an arbitrary manner. That is not a dynamic which should be allowed to exist. There is no reason for the people to be subjected to this treatment; nor is it proper for government to do so.
Read Hartwell, above, and then try to tell me that. At the very least distinguish your point from Hartwell (which you can't do, of course), or else you aren't even making an actual argument.
I am making an actual argument, one from fundamental principle as well. The government is limited. The government is always limited. No contract that you sign can ever remove that, it cannot change that. This is hardwired into the Republic itself. Even if government grows, even if it defines for itself more and more power and uses force to keep it; it does not mean it can rightfully and justly act on its own accord for its own interests particularly at the cost of the rights and liberties of the individual. That's the bottom line.
Wrong again. The government is taking no action against the passengers, the airline is. The government action is against the airline company. That is where the rights violation is, assuming the airline doesn't consent to implementing the TSA regulations.
The captin is not the one frisking me. It is the TSA agent, an agent of the government which is taking that action. If you can't see this, then there is no point because you cannot understand reality.
Do you even read what you write?
Come back and talk to me when you have read some of the relevant law, which you obviously haven't.
Why don't you come back when you can defend your own positions. I've seen several questions you seem to ignore. Additionally, one doesn't have to be a law scholar to understand the basics of the Republic and to adhere to an ideology which pushes the rights of the individual above all else. The fact of the matter is that you want to ignore anything which talks about the rightful action of government in defense of this horrible breach of power by the government.
