Requiring ID = Loss of Freedom to Travel?

Freedom To Travel: Such A Pre-9/11 Concept

Apparently the requirement to show ID and/or identify yourself before flying means the terrorists have already won.


  1. The government monitors where you go within your own country and that’s not a police state? If people are so hot for all this ‘airport security’, then let them pay for it out of their ticket price and let it be administered by the airlines or a company of their choosing. If people don’t want it, then let them fly NRA Air, guns allowed, defend your own damn self. They can’t allow that, though, because most people would choose the latter. Yeah, we’re all about ‘free market’ in this country.

  2. I wouldn’t fly on a no-holds-barred airline, and I’m a pretty solid NRA kind of guy. I’m not sure where I would come down on a ‘who should pay for checking IDs to fly’ debate, but I know damn well that I would agree that someone should pay for it because it’s necessary. Checking IDs doesn’t mean it’s a police state. FWIW, I’d like to see more limitations on how that ID check data is kept and referenced. I’m rather uninformed about details of the current system, but I feel confident that it’s messy, unreliable, and easy to abuse. That doesn’t mean that the system should be trashed. It means it should be improved.

  3. Like I say, we will never know what the free market solution would be, because, yet again, we will adopt a government imposed solution that works poorly if at all. What kind of people adopt ‘free market’ policies towards communist China and won’t let the free market work at home? Oh yeah, that would be us.

  4. The government monitors where you go within your own country and that’s not a police state?’ That’s not actually true. I drove from Louisiana to western Florida two weeks ago and the government had no idea. So, no, it’s not a police state. And you are of course welcome to use a ‘free market’ airline and carry guns if you are into that by chartering a plane. I think.

Comments are closed