The difference being? I'm sorry. Wasn't the Boston terrorist attack not on a plane? Didn't that kill people. In my opinion terror is an emotion, and people can feel that in a variety of situations depending on who they are. Killing a bunch of people, as an event, rarely happens.
So why do you want to force and coerce me? This isn't a libertarian v. socialist argument. It's a libertarian v. authoritarian argument. Are you telling me I'm a threat until proven otherwise, or that we should have policies that treat everyone or a select few that way?
No offense, but that's no way to live IMO. I'd much rather take the risk. I only mentioned the free market because if they were to take this over, solutions would be available for both of us. But for now there's only one solution: That of political theatre.
Please don't get offended as I'm not attacking you, just bad policy. If I were you I'd reflect on how others feel here. You can definitely make a point in that most people don't care either way, but I'd like to think that a majority of people who are interested in terrorism (lol NSA) from a philosophical see policy like this authoritarian at best, and evil and conspiratorial at worst.
> Airplanes have been determined to be a greater catalyst to "terror" than other venues.
Source? Again, terror is a vague definition of an emotion which is dependent on internal characteristics and machinations of each individual who knows the word and feels emotion. I'd love to see their parameters for that word.
That said, I'm sorry if we disagree that air travel needs to be so tightly regulated. I'd love for you to point me to people who are happy about laws like these from a sociological or philosophical perspective. I can definitely do the same for my end, by directing you to this: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/
Regulation can be a little bad for history. While 1970's regs sound pretty scary (I'll have to check that stat out myself), 2000 sounds better than now...