In Response To Matthew

Matthew Whipple posted an excellent comment to my previous post (Learning From Horror), so good in fact that it inspired this post in response. I've broken out his post into what I felt were key quotes and written a response that follows it. Of course, Matt, if you disagree with my editorial decisions or my response feel free to clarify.

So without further ado...

[O]ne of the few tasks specifically enumerated in the Constitution is to "provide for the common defense," and, I might add, to "ensure domestic tranquility."... it seems to me that a perfectly reasonable construction of the Constitution would allow the government to protect from terrorists by providing security in airports...

Both "common defense" and "domestic tranquility" are listed as reasons for having a federal government. It is reasonable to interpret that the government has the authority to provide for these, but it is limited in its means to provide them. For example, no one can be forced to house soldiers.
My primary opposition to airport security is simply one of practicality. The TSA has failed numerous tests (weapons have been snuck through security in audits) while simultaneously inconveniencing every air traveler. The bureaucratic squeamishness towards racial profiling has brought about random checks rather than focused checks. An organization that is more concerned with the political implications of their policies than the real world results will not effectively enhance security.

I might also point out that... the militias were essentially worthless in the Revolutionary War... People certainly have the right to own guns, but untrained fighters can't adequately protect themselves, let alone a country... So the idea that we "protect ourselves" on anything but the most basic level (i.e. shooting a robber) doesn't really work...

I absolutely agree, nor would I suggest that our primary national defense take the form of militias. However the government has not treated the threat of terrorism as a military matter, rather it is treated as a criminal manner (hence the involvement of the FBI rather than the Pentagon). The current administration has, in my opinion, been wise to label this the "Global War on Terror" as a clear statement of military involvement. Unfortunately it still appears to be treated primarily as a criminal matter. I'll save the discussion of a paradigm for dealing with terrorism for another post (as I've planned), but treating terrorism as criminal reinforces the necessity of self-protection.
Interestingly (to me anyhow) the role of militias at the founding of our nation has come up in the current debate surrounding the Second Amendment. Glenn Reynolds brings is up here. I find this interesting because I have argued since Junior High that an armed populace is a fourth branch of the government with regard to checks and balances.

It's perhaps true that government does not have the same incentives as the private sector, but that's not to say the government has NO incentives. Private corporations incentives are making profit, and that profit may best be found in China or Iraq. They don't care about national interests, they care about their interests. Democratically elected government officials, however, are directly accountable to the interests of the nation...at least, in the abstract...

Democratically elected officials ought to be accountable to the interests of the nation, however the incentives that are presently in place do not make them so. Our elected officials have incentives to get reelected. This is especially true for career politicians. When the interest of the nation align with their interests in getting reelected, they will work in favor of the interests of the nation. When they conflict, most will work in favor of their interests in getting reelected.
That said, a private corporations interest are in profit. Depending on the industry that profit may be maximized by producing in China. However at the end of the day a company has to sell its product to the consumer in order to profit. If the consumer doesn't like what is being sold or if he feels the price of the item outweighs the benefit, he won't buy.
In the specific example of airlines, getting groped by TSA officials is too high a price to pay for the benefit of getting from Cincinnati to St. Louis for many customers. In this case, the customer will choose an alternative, like driving. Were the airline responsible for its own security, it would see the lost sale and have the power to modify its security protocols to retain or reacquire future sales. An airplane being used as a guided missle also tends to deter customers, giving them an incentive to enhance security. The tension between these two requirements is where the innovation available to private business has its greatest benefit. Here also is the role for competition. Different airlines will have slightly different security protocols. Customers who are more tolerant to searches, or are less risk averse, will choose an airline with tighter security. Customers who don't want a stranger's hands on themselves will choose an airline with looser security. Also, there will likely be price differences between the various airlines.
There may be a role for government in setting minimum standards, but those would most likely be unnecessary. If an airline were constantly getting hijacked, who would fly it?

One of the main problems that causes government incompetence is the beauracracy that is not accountable to the voter. These people occupy the worst of all possible worlds -- no electoral accountability and no private sector competition. The problem isn't that government, as a first principle, isn't capable of certain functions (like defense). It's that, as structured, it fails. In many instances, the private sector is superior. But not in the case of the common defense, where national interests cannot be sacrificed. I'll certainly grant there are inefficiencies and downright idiocy in many places, but those problems can be improved...

Here again, I don't suggest we abandon our military in favor of private security contractors (as some have). The military is key to our common defense, but it works best against clearly defined enemies. Our military is adapting well to insurgent warfare; this can be clearly seen in Iraq. Because the sole purpose of the military is to be concerned with national defense it has the incentives necessary to adapt to changing threats. There are two problems, however, with relying on a military solution to the problem of terrorism as we face it today:

1. While the military adapts its structure and strategy to better confront the threats we face as a nation it does so slowly. Even today our military structure is best equipped to fight other nations, not nongovernmental/transnational amoeba-like organizations like al-Quida.
2. Our government treats terrorism as a criminal matter rather than a military matter. In doing so it rules out military intervention.

In my previous post, I concluded that lesson #1 was that government is incapable of effectively protecting us. I stand by that conclusion. At present, our military is organized to provide defense against invasion from foreign nations but the threat we face is from a decentralized entity. In response to this threat, the government has deployed bureaucracies to deal with our enemies as criminals.

Behind my conclusion is a first principle of self-reliance. This is a trait that has been pushed out of the forefront of American life, but historically was a distinctive trait. Americans looked first to themselves and their families, then to their neighbors but last to their government. Nothing could be further from reality today.
When disaster strikes today we hear cries for more government intervention. The individuals are still there to help; indeed they flocked in droves to the Gulf coast following Katrina. All our media and loud-mouthed politicians could see was insufficient government. Political point-scoring aside they missed the real show.
Thankfully individual initiative isn't dead yet. I'd like to see some more of it.

Learning from Horror

On September 11, 2001 I awoke expecting the usual antics of the WEBN "Dawn Patrol." Instead I heard a somber voice saying "Hey guys, it looks like a plane just crashed into the World Trade Center." I forewent my usual morning routine of hitting the snooze button and went to check the news. There, to my horror, I watched as a second plane flew into the other tower of the World Trade Center.
Four cross-country flights were hijacked simultaneously to be used as guided, suicide missiles. Three struck their targets (both towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) and the fourth was brought down in Pennsylvania. The message could not be clearer: "America, you are not safe." The widespread response was also crystal clear: "Fuck you."

It has been over six years now and loud voices are obscuring the clear response we had on that day, but its still there. But what, if anything, have we learned in these six years?

Every event affects the world in uncountable ways. The events of 9/11 have had an impact on foreign policy, air-travel security, mail screening, political discourse, news reporting and who can say how much else. As much as some try to pretend that nothing has changed, things have.

It seems to me that the most important lesson has gone unlearned, however; and that is that the government is incapable of providing 100% protection, 100% of the time.

Full Coverage

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to finance a common defense. Nothing in our Constitution guarantees that our Federal government will succeed in protecting us, nor that they are required to do so. 9/11 showed the nation and the world that it is impossible to provide perfect protection.
For years air travelers have been subjected to baggage screening. Our bags were X-rayed and our persons metal-detected. All because fanatical Muslims in the 1980's decided that blowing up airplanes was a good statement. Now the screening is even tighter. Because another group of fanatical Muslims decided to turn airplanes into missiles we are now not permitted to carry even finger-nail clippers on airplanes. This is supposed to protect us.
The insanity of airport security is well documented, so I will not repeat it here. I am concerned now with the question of "why?" Why is this process so asinine?
The answer is simply because the government is involved. Bureaucracies are inherently stupid. This is a feature, not a bug. Bureaucracies are designed to prevent change. There is no appropriate interface for innovation. Bureaucracies are also insulated from normal incentives. Bureaucrats are not accountable to customers, they're accountable to other bureaucrats. This, ostensibly, allows them to do what is right free of popular pressure or the base drive for profits. What it actually does is create an incentive structure to encourage personal benefit at the expense of others. Bureaucrats are not rewarded for helping the customer; on the contrary they are normally rewarded for things like cutting a budget. There is often little reward for hard work or long hours, creating a perverse incentive to slack. These are the people responsible for airport and airline security.
Security threats, whatever form they take, develop quickly and change rapidly. The modern terrorist network is decentralized. As anyone familiar with the Internet knows, decentralized networks can change rapidly. There are fewer dependencies to hold them back. How can an organization whose primary feature is change-resistance hope to adapt to such threats?
Our military faces similar challenges, but they seem to be adapting accordingly. The incentive structure of the military is beyond the scope of my understanding, so I will defer to those who are more familiar with it, but from a home observer of the Iraq war the counterinsurgancy strategy works. A noble and brilliant man put his legacy on the line and it has paid of marvelously. But I digress...

9/11 Lesson #1: The government is incapable of effectively protecting us.

Who then protects us? The answer is obvious, and encoded in both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution: we protect ourselves. We are responsible for ourselves; the government is not responsible for looking after us. That is why our founding documents mention things like militia and why the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms. Stripped of these we are incapable of self-defense.
Movies, books, internet rumors, conspiracy theories all portray the government as all powerful and all knowing. That is dumb. Our government cannot, with great certainty, even tell us how much we owe in taxes, yet we are to believe that they are sufficiently powerful and intelligent to concoct and accomplish the most brilliant and diabolical schemes imaginable.
That is, in a word, retarded. The government's powers are vast (too vast) but they cannot control or see everything.
From this we all must learn to protect ourselves. We face a fanatical enemy and it has infiltrated our nation. Many teachings of the Koran are being used to encourage large and small scale violence against innocents. Protecting ourselves from this systematic violence is daunting. How do we love our neighbors, yet mistrust those of Middle Eastern descent? I don't have the answer to that question.
I suspect the answer comes when we engage our neighbors. We cannot love our neighbors from a distance; we cannot know their needs if we never make contact with them. In the parable of The Good Samaritan those whom the crowd expected to help avoided the ambushed man. It was the undesirable who helped. We cannot do likewise, as Jesus instructed, if we are distant from our neighbors. How can we aid them if we know not their needs?
The willingness to embrace and influence our neighbors is a great weapon that we have left unfired. We have built our homes into fortresses to keep the world at bay, our island of civilization, but in doing so we have abandoned the battlefield. We need to gird ourselves for battle, open the draw bridge and venture into battle.