http://samharrelson.disqus.com/Sam Harrelson's BlogenTue, 15 Aug 2006 11:04:10 -0000http://www.samharrelson.com/2006/08/10/i-dont-like-trading-this-much-freedom-for-protection/#comment-1710049<p>Sure it is... I had the freedom to carry on a bottle of water, now I don't have that opportunity. If you want to get into semantics, freedom is the condition of being free of restraints. So, a group of people with power (government) telling someone with lesser power (me) that bringing water onto a plane is prohibited is limited freedom.</p><p>Of course, Kris Kristoferson would argue that freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.</p>Sam HarrelsonTue, 15 Aug 2006 11:04:10 -0000http://www.samharrelson.com/2006/08/10/i-dont-like-trading-this-much-freedom-for-protection/#comment-1710050<p>Well, yeah. But regarding where the road and rubber actually meeting -- prohibiting this stuff (or any carry-on) isn't really giving up "freedom"</p>JonMon, 14 Aug 2006 17:27:51 -0000http://www.samharrelson.com/2006/08/10/i-dont-like-trading-this-much-freedom-for-protection/#comment-1710051<p>We have a considerably larger chance of dying in a car accident on the way to buy cigarettes and beer from the gasoline station then driving to McDonald's and loading up on a value meal. Oh, and the beer, cigs, gas and McDonald's aren't too good for us either.</p><p>Government should work to help us realize the rational risks involved in "terrorism" rather than trying to profit from it by instilling even more terror.</p>Sam HarrelsonFri, 11 Aug 2006 12:26:12 -0000http://www.samharrelson.com/2006/08/10/i-dont-like-trading-this-much-freedom-for-protection/#comment-1710048<p>I disagree. Why haven't they been doing this since 9/11 - we knew this was a method used in the past (1995). What liquids do you really take on the plane anyway -- check your bag and read a book and order drinks in flight.</p>JonFri, 11 Aug 2006 08:46:37 -0000