I'd question the need to have government involved in the decision at all. Why not let the airlines decide their own security policies?
At least three reasons:
Because airlines have these large objects that can function as missiles and bring down buildings. So failing to secure them harms lots of other people.
As with other industries, individuals do not have the resources to make detailed judgments themselves about safety procedures. This is similar to the need for government inspection and regulation of drugs and food.
Violation of security procedures is (for a variety of good reasons) a criminal offense. In order for that to make any sense, you need the government to have some handle in what procedures do and do not make sense.
The first two reasons only justify requiring that airlines carry liability insurance policies against the external damage that can be caused by by their planes and injuries/deaths of passengers. Then, the insurer would specify what protocols airlines must follow before the insurer will offer an affordable policy. Passengers would not have to make such judgments in that case.
Remember to look for the third alternative!
I don't understand the point you're making in 3.
ETA: Actually, you know what? This has devolved into a political debate. Not cool. Can we...
To whom it may concern:
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
(After the critical success of part II, and the strong box office sales of part III in spite of mixed reviews, will part IV finally see the June Open Thread jump the shark?)