What baggage claim has in common with government

While traveling, I am often struck by the interesting social dynamics and peculiarities present at such places as airports. Whether it be the manner in which queues form, the way that people negotiate for space, or the inconsistencies in the enforcement of TSA policies over the years, there is much to be learned about humanity through simple observations at the airport.

One of those lessons is available to us at baggage claim, where a process offers some interesting parallels to our relationship with government. Of course, with the promises of baggage claim being far less ambitious, and with airlines having a slightly greater interest in customer satisfaction, baggage claim generally tends to deliver on its basic promise; government, on the other hand, generally betrays its basic promises in favor of much more ambitious agendas. And where it betrays its promises and the very premise of “just government” (i.e. “the consent of the governed”), the individual has little to no recourse for the same reasons that travelers are willing to be so patient or to otherwise put up with so many inconveniences upon entering the airport or preparing to collect their belongings.

Some of those reasons are rather revealing:

Few people know anything about what actually happens behind the scenes, how things are actually handled, or when things will eventually be delivered (if at all); and when things go awry or deliverables are neglected, lost, or delayed (or intercepted by opportunists exploiting weaknesses in the system), the victims are generally none the wiser to the true reasons, they essentially have no immediate recourse or reliable means for making contact with those physically responsible for delivery, they are easily fooled or silenced, routinely expected to pay the price (monetarily or emotionally) for any inconvenience, and they are left lost themselves and confused by a process in which they will never participate nor have the specialized knowledge to feel confident enough to seriously challenge the system — one whose true inner-workings they will scarcely understand, and one whose deficiencies can be (and often are) excused by way of policy or intimidation, flimsy rhetoric or technical-sounding jargon, or by merely exploiting the confusion, despondency, and unfamiliarity of those affected.

Fortunately, so far as baggage claim is concerned, the stakes are clear: passengers stand to lose only the items they’ve checked, plus the time and effort required to reclaim them (or seek compensation for damage or loss). What’s more, the troubles of baggage claim are completely avoidable, with shrewd travelers often limiting their luggage to carry-ons. With government, on the other hand, the stakes are essentially unlimited, and the troubles it presents are effectively unavoidable. With that in mind, it behooves us to remember just what’s at stake whenever and wherever we place faith in systems and processes, especially those we don’t personally control or understand.

Comments

The Deal with Tariffs

Over the course of President Trump’s two terms, there has been much talk around the matter of tariffs — taxes on imported goods. However, much of the talk seems to miss the point. After all, for those of us who seek the truth, it’s not really a question of whether tariffs are ‘good’ but whether they are preferable to other kinds of taxes — assuming, of course, that taxes are the rule, as certain as the eventuality of death. First, let’s establish the theory: beyond the generic purpose of revenue generation for the state, the institution of tariffs ordinarily serves to reduce (or discourage) imports by making them artificially more expensive, while encouraging domestic production by making domestic products more appealing on a relative price basis. In the realm of foreign affairs, tariffs are instituted or threatened in the course of international trade negotiations in order to signal dissatisfaction with existing trade barriers and to push for more favorable trade terms; or in ord...

Summarizing the “Separation of Church and State”

There is much confusion surrounding the concept of the “separation of church and state”; much of it likely born out of the steep secular decline in religious affiliation across recent generations, with particular emphasis among atheists and anti-deists. While many have hastened to leverage this language (“separation of church and state”) in order to condemn or censure religious values — particularly those which are Christian — where they have carried influence in public life (i.e. prayer in schools, teachers covering lessons from the Bible, government representatives appealing to God, coinage bearing the words “In God We Trust”), the truth is that this “separation” was never expected to completely eliminate religious practice or religious sentiment from all matter of public life. In fact, religion was so deeply enmeshed in American life during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that the French magistrate and prison reformer Gustave de Beaumont, during his nine-month tour of A...

Rethinking “Forgiveness”

Forgiveness is often hailed as the ultimate moral virtue — a cleansing of the soul, a sign of spiritual maturity, and the first step toward healing fractured relationships. But in modern discourse, particularly in religious and pop-psychological circles, “forgiveness” has extended beyond the sensible, beyond etiquette, and beyond justice and useful application. The concept of “forgiveness” has been stretched far outside of the realms of that which is easy to “forgive”, that which is merely inconvenient or annoying, or relatively innocuous or insignificant, where “forgiveness” is merely part of tolerating people’s human shortcomings, their mistakes and their accidents , or extending ‘mercy’ to those who’ve disrespected or “trespassed against us” (and have since offered sincere apologies and the necessary restitution). This reimagined kind of “forgiveness” has taken on a dangerously idealized form ignorant to or dismissive of the laws and limits of human nature and the potential imp...

Their Lives, Their Fortunes, and Their Sacred Honor

A recent YouTube post by the political organization PragerU betrays the truth about the American Revolution. It goes as follows: “Britain spent a fortune defending the colonies in the French & Indian War. America’s response? Boycotts, protests, rebellion. Ingratitude that sparked a revolution.” This description of history is not just a reductive reframing of the issues; it is a crude and provocative statement insulting the intelligence of Americans who remember their history and disrespecting the men who staked everything in their noblest of causes during the American Revolution. One commenter in the comments section even sided with PragerU, taking to task any who dares criticize the post: “Are you incapable of creating scenarios from the opposite side?” Unfortunately for this commenter, true history isn’t about “creating scenarios”; it’s about understanding what actually happened — the totality of the circumstances. So, let us do just that: let’s get straight to the fac...

The ‘Values’ Problem in the NFL

Every year, there is talk across the major sports leagues about which players are due for contract extensions and huge paydays. The chatter is seemingly endless, and it often seems to cast a shadow over the sports themselves — talking heads arguing and debating, insisting that so-and-so is going to ‘reset the market’ or so-and-so is demanding the ‘market rate’ for his position. This is where the conversation goes awry, economically speaking. The truth is that players are not commodities: they are neither fungible nor interchangeable. Each player brings a distinct skill set, and each team operates within a unique scheme, meaning that each player’s value is situational rather than universal. There is, thus, no ‘market rate’ for any player or position; contracts exist in relation to each team’s particular situation, and every dollar spent on one player (in a salary-cap league) directly reduces the resources available for others — where ‘overspending’ in any case necessari...

The People's Banner: Why the “Thin Blue Line” Flag Betrays the Spirit of the Stars and Stripes

The American flag — proudly known as the Stars and Stripes — is more than a banner of colors stitched together. It is a living symbol of rebellion, unity, and the sovereignty of the people. It was never originally the flag of a government, but of a movement; not a mark of officialdom, but of revolution. Having evolved from the Continental Union Flag, its stripes — with their roots in the "rebellious stripes" of the Sons of Liberty — represent resistance to abusive power, a stand against imperial overreach, and a declaration that legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. In this light, the proliferation of the “Thin Blue Line” version of the American flag is not merely a modification of a unique American symbol; it is a mutilation of the flag’s fabric and its meaning. It transforms a people’s flag into a government’s flag, in direct contradiction to its foundational ethos. The Stars and Stripes emerged during the crucible of the American Revolution. Designe...

Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin)

Buy your copy today of Fischer: Tortured in the Pasadena Jailhouse (featuring the Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin) , available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble . The name Bobby Fischer reigns supreme in the world of chess, yet there was a time when it hogged headlines, struck fear into the eyes of the competition, and was on the lips of folks all across the globe. More than the face of the centuries-old game, there was a time when Bobby Fischer was synonymous with the cause and spirit of America, that his moves on the chessboard sought more than checkmate but to pit the strength of “raw-boned American individualism” against “the Soviet megalithic system” which had come to dominate the game of chess at the same time it dominated Cold War politics. Fischer’s triumph over the USSR's Boris Spassky in the ’72 World Chess Championship would ultimately be celebrated as a symbolic and diplomatic victory for the U.S., but, as time would tell, it would not mean the American...

Death By Cop

A recent post from a popular YouTube channel has provided more evidence of that which is blatantly obvious in modern America, at least to those who are willing to face the truth: the fact that cops, as with the governments they serve, are the enemy to goodness, justice, and American liberty. This latest post is from The Civil Rights Lawyer, a channel (by a practicing civil rights lawyer) documenting police misconduct and civil rights violations since the year 2020. This time, it is a case of an elderly man, a former pastor suffering from dementia, murdered at the hands of “ the very people who were supposed to protect and care for him”: “Officers were dispatched to a business to assist an elderly customer who appeared to be suffering from dementia. At the scene, officers found him extremely confused. He told them the year was 1948 and that the president was George Washington. So they call his daughter to come pick him up. So how did things go so terribly wrong that day, tha...

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators — who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes — who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight. Roche also references popular stu...

“Stolen Land”

The claim that America was built on “stolen land” is not only a politically-loaded oversimplification, but a deliberately narrow framing that keeps America — and America alone — under perpetual moral scrutiny. It collapses fundamentally different actors, motives, and historical processes into a single accusation, thereby obscuring more than it explains. At a macro political level, land claims have always been in flux. Long before European contact, tribes across North America routinely warred over territory, resources, hunting grounds, and waterways. Claims were seasonal, contingent, and often overlapping, shaped by migration patterns, environmental conditions, and intertribal treaties that themselves shifted over time. Had Europeans never settled in America, this dynamic would have continued to dominate; it was the prevailing condition of the continent. From this perspective, “ownership” has never been an abstract moral constant but a function of enforceability under a...

Paradocracy

Search This Blog