I couldn't agree more. Security and freedom are inversely proportional. I was upset when the start of the second paragraph to this piece stated that the most important thing for the government to do is protect people from terrorists. I couldn't disagree with that more, safety is never a given and freedom and resiliency in the face of adversity and setbacks should be our goal, not a nanny state.
> Security and freedom are inversely proportional.
That would imply that the relationship is much more linear than reality. Particular measures have individual costs and benefits that are not necessarily closely related and some actions may cost privacy and may even be counterproductive. Sometimes adding freedom may add security e.g. not interning people without trial as that can drive support for terrorists and prevent suspicions being reported.
