I read in my local paper that they're developing software to examine the images; then, TSA people will only get a look if the computer detects something suspicious.

To anyone concerned about legitimacy (Metavirus was) here's the original reddit thread. CTRL+F for 'checkmarshall' to see comments by the submitter.

As with most things on the net we can't be certain, but it looks pretty legit to me.

whoops. fixed, sorry

Why are we reading and linking to worthless Balloon Juice rants?

Kyl's stunt was pathetic, but Steve Benen does the most editorializing you could possibly need.

Yet he's one-sided as usual. Read the NYT, TPM, Slate, Democracy Arsenal, and so on.

FFS

Not entirely silly, but fairly so

Random better ideas: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/pie-in-...http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/06/a-real-...
Plus, of course, a constitutional amendment that bans having a government-sanctioned positive right to anything! : )

I said "only affects them" for good reason. It doesn't fall on me to prove the negative holds for every situation under the sun.

But in general the freedom to contract liability limits and non-litigation clauses is as clear as the freedom to inject yourself with heroin, or to euthanasia.

Victimless things can't be banned, no matter how stupid you think the action is or how inconvenient you may find it.

Remember, negative externalities can't be some BS thing like "I can imagine a world in which most employers would ask prospective employees to do X, which I believe bad for society, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to do it".

No. You don't take away people's freedom to contract just because you can imagine them coming to arrangements you don't like.

There are of course situations that are arguably not victimless. For example, the sole parent of a minor who doesn't have someone lined up wanting custody. In this case maybe it would be a good idea to limit their euthanasia right, in the interests of the child and so it doesn't become a burden on the state.

It might surprise you that libertarian theory supports a free market in organs, especially when it's more than just a spare kidney.

Well, random example: a man in his early 30s is diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor, is given 6 months to live. Decides he wants to leave some money for his family. Goes to the market and finds as many buyers as he can for his heart, lungs, liver, etc.

Offhand I can't think of a negative externality that involves full consent. One can imagine malicious scenarios, for example threatening to kill someone's family unless they sign over their organs to you. But that should already be illegal. I'm certain contracts signed at the point of a gun are considered void in any sane legal system.

From a libertarian perspective, there should be no liability caps--unless the parties agree to it

In libertarian theory, if consenting parties agree to something that only affects them, you cannot interfere with it--FULL STOP.

No body has a positive right to health care, just like nobody has a positive right to health care without liability caps, or a positive right to anything else.

I'm not doing any devil's advocacy here--under libertarian principles this is elementary stuff.

Well, exactly. Tiers of service, and getting what you pay for.

And $50,000 hardly seems an unreasonable default offer. Though it's likely more expensive, higher-liability plans would be available from the very best doctors.

Only a statist (or a lawyer...) prefers one-size fits all, or thinks today's status quo of a limited supply of doctors who can afford the malpractice insurance is superior and less dystopic.

A libertarian necessarily opposes any state-mandated liability caps.

I don't know what Rand Paul's positions are, but to the extent he favors state-mandated liability caps he is not a libertarian.

Anyway, yes, the default situation should always be unlimited liability.

However, any practitioner could offer terms (e.g., as part of a contract you sign before the service) which arbitrarily limits their liability. It's up to you whether you come to an agreement or decide to go elsewhere.

The examples come from the first cartoon... sooo, they were neither arbitrarily nor intentionally chosen to make an argument that "gubmint/regulations bad". They were chosen for the reverse.

The response just goes to show that the framing in the original is bullshit. It also suggests that statist folks aren't paying attention to the real problems, and are too quick to propose additive regulation instead.

Because, you know, when an occupation goes badly it's clear that we need more troops. And when drug prohibition fails it's clear that we need more police, more enforcement, more, stiffer prison terms. Doubling down on state expansion is the best way to solve problems.