For all those saying things about your rights being violated, understand this. Using an aircraft as a mode of transportation is not a "right" you have. It is an option you have available for use should you so choose. Therefor, your "rights" are not being violated by these body scanners, metal detectors, x-rays, and pat downs. You are not ever legally forced or obligated to fly; it is a choice you make and so they can put in place whatever rules they see fit. And I promise, TSA agents don't want to see most of you in those body scanners.
James

Free association is a (first amendment) right. It is expressed through contract. When you buy a plane ticket, it is a contract. You trade money for transportation. The TSA, with zero authority, gets in between you and the other party to the contract (the airline) and decides when you may associate and under what conditions. This is illegitimate and a violation of my right to freedom of association.

This is compounded by the fact that most airports are owned by governments, thus making them property owned by everyone. If it’s my property, I have the right to access it. And someone else does not have the right to limit my access to it.

It’s true, we’re not forced to fly. We’re not forced to buy big-screen TVs either, so does that justify as high a tax on those TV’s as the government would like? What about clothes? I don’t have to buy them. I can use fig leaves instead. I don’t have to buy my food in the supermarket either, right? I could just grow it myself. So the government should be able to tax food as much as it pleases.

For that matter, I’m not forced to be alive. No one will even miss me perhaps. So does that justify the government taking my life?

If this is the direction that statists want to go in, I suggest they set a good example and start with themselves. Surely if this line of thought is so correct and reasonable, they won’t mind proving it by putting their money where their mouth is? Maybe James can go first.

14 Responses to TSA is Violating our Right to Freedom of Association

  1. Derek says:

    Your “I own that property and have a right to access it” argument falls flat. I’ve got an ownership stake in Nellis AFB, but there’s plenty of Hangars there that I’ll never be allowed inside no matter how much I demanded it.

    Stick to the freedom of association argument. There’s plenty of meat to that, but your “public ownership” argument has plenty of holes you’d probably rather not argue against.

    • Your ownership is limited, by your voluntary agreement.

      I have made no voluntary agreement to limit my ownership stake in my local government-managed airport.

      • Derek says:

        I’ve made no “voluntary agreement” to limit my access to Hanger 51, but I’m willing to bet there’s guy with guns who will shoot me if I try, and there’s no court in the country that’d convict them, nor do I think I’d necessarily fault them for it.

        Tilting at that windmill will only damage the rest of the perfectly-valid argument with the taint of weakness.

  2. Jay Cunnington says:

    There is no freedom of association guaranteed in the Constitution. There IS freedom of assembly, but that’s for demonstrations (redress of grievances, as it were).

    This is like saying the Constitution enforces a separation of church and state, which it doesn’t. That goes back to a phrase by Jefferson in a letter to a New England pastor.

    Let’s stick with 10th Amendment violations. There’s nothing about a national transportation security force there, nor nothing about government guaranteeing safety (beyond the militia) in the Constitution. The fact that a Federal force has interposed itself in the middle of a contract on locally-owned facilities is a big enough violation for me.

    • They are practically the same thing, and association has been held as a right codified in the first amendment by the supreme court.

      Even in the first amendment, the right to freedom of assembly codified therein is not limited just for redress of grievance. Take note of the comma.

      Which of course doesn’t include the fact that the constitution limits the government, not us. It is not a statement of all of the rights of people. There are considerably more rights than are codified there.

      I fail to see the church and state analogy. The constitution enforces nothing. Only people can enforce, i.e., put force to something.

  3. jdferry says:

    You are wrong Jay. The sentence in the amendment reads,”…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and ..” If you notice there is a comma after the right to peaceably assemble. The “, and” lists not a limitation of this right, but explicitly states an item that is a not to be stopped once the people assemble.

  4. Jason says:

    “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

  5. M W Lees-Grossmann says:

    I am stunned that someone who failed 5th grade Social Studies so spectacularly is drawing a government paycheck.

  6. Jack Nauti says:

    James does not deserve to be counted among “Americans”. I think he’d be more comfortable in a nice, safe Fascist country, don’t you think? His attitude has no place in the country of Jefferson.

  7. Joel says:

    I guess I’ll never understand the argument, “Flying a plane isn’t a right!”

    For one, this betrays a woeful ignorance of the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is meant to limit Federal and State powers. Thus, any issue not explicitly covered by the Constitution is implicitly an individual right unless said issue was granted to the Federal Government (such as having a military or dealing with interstate commerce). Any power not given to the Federal Government would then be assumed by the individuals or local states. So from a philosophical view of the Constitution, the first thing we must realize is that if a right is absent from the Constitution, unless that right is explicitly given to the US Federal Government, then the right is assumed to be an individual right.

    Secondly, and more to the point, the “right to assembly” argument, while true, is unnecessary. I say unnecessary because it puts an undue burden of proof on those of us who recognize the violations inherent within TSA regulations. Rather, it is up to the skeptics to demonstrate where in the Constitution it says that if a right isn’t explicitly given to the people that it’s not a right.

    As it is, if we follow the line of reasoning in the original objection then we could argue for warrantless home searches. After all, no law forces me to have a home. Or what about warrantless wiretaps considering no law forces me to buy a phone.

    The point is, just because something is a voluntary activity doesn’t mean our rights are revoked. This, again, is a fundamental flaw within how we look at the Constitution. The rights promised in the Constitution are given to individuals, not circumstances or groups of people. Because they are given to individuals, those individuals posses those rights irrespective of their surroundings. While there are some logical limits to this theory, those limits are to exceptions and are not the rule.

    Thus, it is up to the critics to substantiate how the TSA falls under those exceptions and not force us to prove that we actually have these rights by partaking in a voluntary activity. Whether or not I volunteered is irrelevant to whether or not my rights exist in a certain point; as rights do not originate from the government, but rather supersede the government and are founded in Natural Law it is not up to the government to “suspend” our rights for security.

    • I don’t think it’s correct to say the constitution promises or gives rights. Rights are part of you. No one can give them or take them away. The constitution only puts some of them into words, ie codifies them.
      George Donnelly recently posted..Michael Scheuer is My New Hero

      • Joel says:

        You are correct and I wasn’t careful with my wording. I meant to say that the Constitution secures our rights (that is, recognizes them). My apologies.

  8. [...] is Violating our Right to Freedom of Association document.write(''); https://wewontfly.com/tsa-is-violatin…of-association Great post. Sometimes I lose sight of the reasoned responses to the TSA's irradiate/assault crimes [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

CommentLuv Enabled

Trolls, repetitiveness, personal attacks or anything else not constructive will be deleted and banned. (Only governments are limited by the first amendment.)

Recent Comments

  • Jon Blade: They have a separate entrance for working, and once working behind security, can pass anything they want...
  • G Martin: Disabilities come in all forms, and there are many in our society, who are ambulatory, but also disabled....
  • Muke: ‘Superficial’ as a technical term means ‘on the surface’ (Latin...

Topics