PeakOil is You
Papers, please! Permission required from DHS to travel
First unread post • 7 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Papers, please! Permission required from DHS to travel
by lys3rg0 » Mon 08 Oct 2007, 16:45:54
I suppose this piece of news would fit better in Americas Discussion, but, since we're on a peak oil site, we may as well look at it from an energy point of view. With that said, here comes the bomb:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rom February onward, you must request PERMISSION from the Department of Homeland Security to travel domestically on either airlines or sea ships. [...] You will not be allowed to verify if the person demanding your papers is actually authorized to do so. In addition, the airlines or their contractors (or sub or even sub sub contractors) have the right, under the proposed rules, to do anything they like with your personal information
sourceSo, basically, if you want to fly, it will be a nice reenactment of the good old days of "Seine Papiere, bitte!"
Why i actually put this in energy news is, i wonder whether the system will be used to limit air travels by granting permission on a necessity basis, therefore saving fuel. Is this too far a stretch of immagination? I know, Occam's razor and all, there's no reason to assume a hidden agenda of peak oil mitigation hidden behind a simple explanation of the corporatocracy trying to limit civil liberties and extend the grip of the fascist state under their control. But seriously, a permit system will be bad for business. Many people that don't really have to fly won't do so anymore, just so they don't have to deal with the bureaucracy. Who in the right mind would want that, with the US economy in the state it is in? So, we must assume it is something else altogether... if we start on the premise that this is a thought out measure and not just incompetence.
Ok, let the tin foil hats fly
-
lys3rg0 - Lignite
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Tue 15 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 'bout 15 miles from EU's eastern border (thankfully on the inside)
Re: Papers, please!
by nth » Mon 08 Oct 2007, 17:48:30
What is interesting is the fact that US airlines already have the right to deny you the right to fly, yet no one is complaining. Yet, when US government wants to enforce the same rules, people are up in arms. What gives?
-
nth - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Papers, please!
by eastbay » Mon 08 Oct 2007, 18:43:52
Few are denied boarding for any reason at this time.
The primary reason people will not be able to fly in the coming years is higher ticket prices due to higher fuel costs. A few decades ago it cost someone in the USA an average annual income to fly across the Pacific Ocean and back. That's why few flew across the oceans.
Those days are coming back before you know it with or without someone requesting additional travel documents.
The primary reason people will not be able to fly in the coming years is higher ticket prices due to higher fuel costs. A few decades ago it cost someone in the USA an average annual income to fly across the Pacific Ocean and back. That's why few flew across the oceans.
Those days are coming back before you know it with or without someone requesting additional travel documents.
Got Dharma?
Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
-
eastbay - Expert
- Posts: 7186
- Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Re: Papers, please!
by Geko45 » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 13:23:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'W')hat is interesting is the fact that US airlines already have the right to deny you the right to fly, yet no one is complaining. Yet, when US government wants to enforce the same rules, people are up in arms. What gives?
Well, the difference is that the airlines own the plane. It is their right to sell/revoke tickets to whomever they see fit. Unless you own your own plane, you don't have a right to fly per se. However, you do have the right to enter into a contractual arrangement with another entity to secure transportation services. For insance, I agree to buy a ticket from Continental and they agree to transport me where I wish to go (given certain terms of service), but now the US. Government is stepping in and suspending or revoking that right in whatever manner they see fit. It's an entirely different ball game.
It's kinda like when airports handled security privately. There were no civil rights concern because it was a private entity imposing thier requirements before they let you board their plane. Now that TSA is doing security, basically every single air passenger has to submit to what is arguably an illegal search before boarding an aircraft that they have already arranged contractually to fly on. We've changed from private entities exercising their rights in regards to property ownership to the state dictating terms to both parties.
Geko45 - Producer of Doomer Porn
-
Geko45 - Tar Sands
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston, TX
Re: Papers, please!
by Ferretlover » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 15:50:35
HHHmmm... Permission to fly? Higher and higher fuel costs?
Could this be the beginning of restricted air travel due to lack of fuel?
Could this be the beginning of restricted air travel due to lack of fuel?
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
- Ferretlover
- Elite
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: Hundreds of miles further inland
Re: Papers, please!
by nth » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 17:35:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Geko45', '
')Well, the difference is that the airlines own the plane. It is their right to sell/revoke tickets to whomever they see fit. Unless you own your own plane, you don't have a right to fly per se. However, you do have the right to enter into a contractual arrangement with another entity to secure transportation services. For insance, I agree to buy a ticket from Continental and they agree to transport me where I wish to go (given certain terms of service), but now the US. Government is stepping in and suspending or revoking that right in whatever manner they see fit. It's an entirely different ball game.
It's kinda like when airports handled security privately. There were no civil rights concern because it was a private entity imposing thier requirements before they let you board their plane. Now that TSA is doing security, basically every single air passenger has to submit to what is arguably an illegal search before boarding an aircraft that they have already arranged contractually to fly on. We've changed from private entities exercising their rights in regards to property ownership to the state dictating terms to both parties.
')Well, the difference is that the airlines own the plane. It is their right to sell/revoke tickets to whomever they see fit. Unless you own your own plane, you don't have a right to fly per se. However, you do have the right to enter into a contractual arrangement with another entity to secure transportation services. For insance, I agree to buy a ticket from Continental and they agree to transport me where I wish to go (given certain terms of service), but now the US. Government is stepping in and suspending or revoking that right in whatever manner they see fit. It's an entirely different ball game.
It's kinda like when airports handled security privately. There were no civil rights concern because it was a private entity imposing thier requirements before they let you board their plane. Now that TSA is doing security, basically every single air passenger has to submit to what is arguably an illegal search before boarding an aircraft that they have already arranged contractually to fly on. We've changed from private entities exercising their rights in regards to property ownership to the state dictating terms to both parties.
Geko45,
I have a hard time understanding your logic.
First, airlines can sell you tickets and still refuse to honor their contracts to let you board the plane. Purchasing a ticket is not equivalent to right to board a plane. The same reasons governments denied boarding are the same ones the airlines enforced, too prior to 9/11. The only changed here is that the government is more involved in judging whether you are a danger or not. This is a big change, but as far as our rights to fly, we always have the same right and that is we can be denied to fly based on airline's opinion that we are a nuissance or a danger to other passengers. The government is only denying based on perceived danger. Airlines have always gone a step more.
By the way, even if you own a plane, you do not have the right to fly without governmental approval. This has not changed by 9/11.
-
nth - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1978
- Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Papers, please!
by Geko45 » Wed 10 Oct 2007, 18:24:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', 'F')irst, airlines can sell you tickets and still refuse to honor their contracts to let you board the plane. Purchasing a ticket is not equivalent to right to board a plane.
You are correct, purchasing a ticket is not a right to board a plane, but you do have a right to enter into a contractual relationship with another party for transportation services. The ticket is a contract between you and the airline, that contract has terms like; you can not be drunk when you board, you can not bring certain items on board, you must show proof of id at time of boarding, etc. When the airline refuses you boarding it's based on the grounds that you violated one or more of these terms. These terms are posted on their websites and in fine print on the back of your ticket. The point is that when they refuse boarding to you its based on terms stipulated in the contract.
When the government steps in and decides who can fly and who can't, there are actually two parties whose rights are being violated, the passenger and the airline. Both parties executed their rights to enter into a contractual relationship, but because the government decides (often arbitrarily) that you pose a risk then both parties are forced to abandon the contract that they both thought was mutually beneficial. It's no longer a willing agreement between two parties, but a dictated condition by an uninvolved third party. Of course the government claims authority to do this based on public safety concerns and regulation of interstate commerce, but in my opinion that is a stretch in most cases (especially the latter).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he same reasons governments denied boarding are the same ones the airlines enforced, too prior to 9/11.
Yes, the grounds are the same, but where does the federal government derive its authority to intervene? The airline derived its authority from the ownership of the airplane and the terms of the contract.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y the way, even if you own a plane, you do not have the right to fly without governmental approval. This has not changed by 9/11.
While this is the official position of the federal government, it is in my opinion invalid. Flying is a right (as is driving) even though the government denies this. I base this on the 10th ammendment which clearly states that all powers not expressely granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. Driving is regulated by the states, so you'd have to look to your state constitution to determine if it is truly your right to drive, but since there is no specific clause in the constitution granting the authority to control private air travel to the federal government then that means it is up to the states and/or the people to decide. The federal government claims the authority is based on the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but I find this argument weak at best. Even if you accept it, then why do I have to go through TSA screening if I am on a domestic flight that doesn't leave the state? There is no interstate commerce involved?
Geko45 - Producer of Doomer Porn