Layered complexity induces logical contradictions. Specifically here, the modern world forces many people to fly, even though it technically remains a voluntary activity. Businesses are free to reject serving you for any reason, even making such decisions in lock step with the rest of the industry. Ergo, your right to travel gets constructively neutered through commercial law, even though your axiomatic/primitive rights have purportedly not been violated.
AFAICT the airlines wanted all of that bullshit legislation to indemnify themselves from the damages caused by terrorism. Technically you might be able to create your own airline (and airports) that rejected all of the groping theater, etc. And perhaps after decades of fighting in court you'd win the right for your companies to not have their freedom hampered in such a manner. But none of that is economically prudent, so we're stuck with the blatantly anticonstitutional regulations.
AFAICT the airlines wanted all of that bullshit legislation to indemnify themselves from the damages caused by terrorism. Technically you might be able to create your own airline (and airports) that rejected all of the groping theater, etc. And perhaps after decades of fighting in court you'd win the right for your companies to not have their freedom hampered in such a manner. But none of that is economically prudent, so we're stuck with the blatantly anticonstitutional regulations.
reply