What about the people that get killed by the airplane that explodes over their neighborhood? Where was their choice in the matter? What about people in another building that a plane flies into? Do they not get a say?
What is the probability of this happening? Zero rational people on planet earth worry about death by speeding plane. Limiting the freedom of millions to prevent an event that has a truly negligible chance of happening is insane.
Also, by this logic its okay for the government to make any mandate that they want as long as its done with the excuse of saving the lives of
potential victims. There is literally nothing that can't be done if we start basing policy off hypothetical deaths. Your imagination is the limit...
Let's have random police checkpoints on all major roads and bodyscanners in all large population centers. We will prevent a few deaths that way.
And if people who are not doctors ask to see you naked they often get arrested too. That's why there's a difference between a professional and some dude on the street.
The difference is that the doctor isn't
forcing you to do anything.
Travel and using the convenience of a modern airliner are two different things.
Causing inconvenience/invasion of privacy to be a condition of using the 21st century's cheapest, quickest method of travel is nothing less than limiting my ability to travel.
You seem to be implying that if motor vehicles were outlawed then my freedom to travel isn't being restricted simply because I still have the option of walking. This is absurd, is it not?
But if we are to take your idea and run with it....why require drivers licenses to drive? Isn't that a coercion to not drive if you have a thing against learning rules? Shouldn't we just open the roads to anyone that can purchase or borrow a vehicle?
But not having driving training arguably poses a direct danger to others.
Not having TSA mandated security screenings, on the other hand, poses almost no danger whatsoever (as security would be dealt with privately), and, critically, upholds individual freedom. (apparently, its more important for you to impose your subjective value of security upon others, rather than preserve universal, equal freedom)
Again, everybody has a different opinion of what the ideal balance between security and freedom is. Why not leave it up to the individual to execute that balance in his own life? Personally, I don't believe the terrorist threat is that great and would much prefer a more convenient, less intrusive flying experience even if it means I have to give up a little of what
you perceive as "security."
Funny how we are assuming that protection from terrorism is necessarily in conflict with individual freedom... almost as if they are in a direct mathematical relationship or something. This isn't the case though. Infact, most "terrorism" is a direct result of our offensive, interventionist foreign policy. We invade foreign countries and kill innocent civilians, enforce our subjective morals, engage in economic warfare that bleeds countries dry through lending, and then wonder why people want to attack us. The obvious solution is to stop bullying everybody. Viewing the problem from this... more systemic perspective (if you will)... loses of freedom seem not only immoral, but also unnecessary.
Tyrannical governments
always justify freedom erosion as necessary to protect against an outside threat.
