So, in the mail I find my next month's copy of Discover Magazine. Right away an article catches my eye, becaues I largely agree with its sentiment even before reading it.

Its entitled Homeland Insecurity. It is about how all of our efforts and money is going to waste, not actually helping the safety situation and how improbable a nuclear or biological attack actually is even though "the terrorists" really would like to do it.

Its about how our money is wasted on command and control trailers for towns of 4,200 people and pretty much how fear is used for politicians to pork-barrel money for their own state.

Yup. :( It's being used to manipulate the voters.

It is being used to bankroll people's new security companies.

It is being used to bankroll people's new careers.

It is just like what the DEA did back in the late 70s and 80s.

We might even soon have TV shows which legitimize it like Miami Vice, I bet.

Crockett and Tubbs types hunting down terrorists, not just drug kingpins.

how improbable a nuclear or biological attack actually is even though "the terrorists" really would like to do it.Not to mention, how even more improbable it is that Homeland Security will do anything useful to prevent it. Look at how they handled Katrina, and just imagine how useless they'd be if there were a serious threat.

In 2008, they'll piss away $46 billion of your taxpayer dollars.

I like this guy.

Absurd travel rules that should be jettisoned (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19999808/)

Yeah, those are ridiculous. :p

Yeah, those are ridiculous. :pYet, I bet if they abandoned those rules and jacked up the price of your tickets to compensate for the revenue loss, you'd scream bloody murder.

Yet, I bet if they abandoned those rules and jacked up the price of your tickets to compensate for the revenue loss, you'd scream bloody murder.

I doubt it. People don't mind paying a fair price for a fair service. People do mind paying the asking price and then getting ripped off with surcharges. They know they're being taken advantage of and they feel the implied insult.

People don't mind paying a fair price for a fair service.If by "fair" you mean a price that will allow the business to make a reasonable profit, then yes, they do mind paying that.

Did you read the article? There is no reason the rules are in place that's why they are rules that need to be gotten rid of.

Sometimes I think you just like arguing.

Did you read the article? There is no reason the rules are in place that's why they are rules that need to be gotten rid of.Just because the article's author said it (without having given it much thought), doesn't mean it's true.

There's a good reason I might want to charge you less for a round trip, or a seven day car rental, and force you to use the entire service. Because the people who use less are customers who are willing to pay me a lot more. If I let those people pay the cheap rate, then I won't make enough money, and I'll be forced to charge everyone an expensive rate. And then, a bunch of libertarians who basically want everything for free will complain about me price gouging them.

Fraud is a crime, even to Libertarians.

As long as you are aware, as the buyer, that 5 Diet Cokes cost more than a Six Pack of Diet Cokes, then all is good.

If the price difference is not disclosed, that could be viewed as a crime, even in a Libertarian Utopia. And even Libertarians would be free to complain, in that Libertarian Utopia. Complaining should never be against the law, especially if you are price gouging.

The fact that the reporter found the differences shows that it is working right now.

If the price difference is not disclosed,All the prices are always disclosed. I've never made travel plans without knowing exactly how much it's going to cost.