I have absolutely no doubt that the most evil words in the english language are "I'm just doing my job". It speaks of the profoundest moral cowardice, a complete abrogation of personal responsibility.
Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by people who tell us so.
This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on", he will kill in cold blood.
All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving western lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road traffic safety, school meals and so on.
It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk.
Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far more lives.
While I agree there is some sort of 'mass psychology' at work here, I believe there are some additional (and more important factors).
There is certainly a lot of irrationality in people who accept these things and who have no direct/executive power to change them. But is there irrationality in the people who decided to put these policies into place? I don't believe it. Quite the contrary, I believe the politicians who created and support these laws have other, unacknowledged interests, that are concealed behind the "terrorism prevention" mantra.
There are so many other things that can be put into place, why are these guys deciding on these particular ones?
A couple of things: money and control. I'm not a journalist, but it would be great if an investigative journalist analyzed the people and the interests behind these regulations. I suspect they would find connections with the companies who provide the screening equipment, and the policy decision makers.
As to the 'control' aspect, this is more related to the psychological idea. The people in power crave control, so they will generally tend to favor policies in that direction. Which is why their power must be constantly monitored and kept in checked by us the people. Without that we can't have any long-lasting liberty.
Your post only focuses on risk of death, and from that standpoint I agree 100% that it is rational to spend money elsewhere.
However, people are fundamentally irrational and emotional. It would be irrational to stop flying due to 9/11. The risk of an attack on your flight is negligible. Yet, airlines lost a lot of passengers due to 9/11! If a second successful attack occurs, many people would lose their confidence not only in airlines, but in their government to protect them.
The government is really in a lose-lose situation here. Do nothing, and they are perceived as weak on terrorism. Do what people say they want the gov't to do - protect the airlines - and suddenly more invasive searches are required. Either way, they will have a very vocal group against them.
Those are not the most evil words - "if you have nothing to hide, why are you against..." are. "I am just doing my job" can easily be countered with "Yep, thats what Eichman/other nazi said too; he was hung too" or if you don't care about the person to whom you are speaking "Yep ,thats what Eichman/other nazi said too. I look forward to seing you on the gallows".
We don't live in a Democracy. Its suppose to be a Republic. But that died a long time ago. Even Google says so. In fact that's the whole point of the pilots protest.
Zimbardo showed that the inevitable consequence of unchecked authority is abuse. Milgram showed that a large proportion of us will do just about anything to our fellow man because someone with a clipboard says so. Asch showed us that we will swear that black is white if we are surrounded by people who tell us so.
This isn't about emotion or politics, it is about some basic psychological facts. If you give a man a badge and a hat he will start beating people down the moment you turn your back. If you give a man the authority to do "whatever is necessary", that authority will be extended to dominate and control as far as is possible. If you tell a man "You have no other choice, you must go on", he will kill in cold blood.
All preventable deaths are unfortunate, but deaths due to terrorism are incredibly rare. Even in the most violent and chaotic places on earth, road traffic accidents dwarf the death toll due to terrorism. If we cared about the preservation of human life, we would spend the TSA's budget on eliminating malaria, tuberculosis and infant diarrhea. If we cared about saving western lives, we would spend the money on public health education and support, road traffic safety, school meals and so on.
It is clear that we're not acting rationally. In response to an extremely rare risk, we are spending countless billions on largely ineffective responses and sacrificing civil liberties on a grand scale. This isn't just about body-scanners, it's about extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the criminalisation of photography and who the hell knows what else. Whatever argument might be made for the TSA, it is absolutely bogus to suggest that they are in any way a rational or proportional response to risk.
Every dollar that we spend on building scanners or spying on students is a dollar that we can't spend on feeding schoolkids or preventing diabetes or making roads safer. Government spending is finite and every dollar of the TSA's budget is money that could be spent much more effectively and save far more lives.