An editorial by the Augusta Chronicle is concerned about the costs to human freedom that may be incurred as a result of proposed abatement of global warming.
Why don’t they have the same concern when it comes to the proposed infringment on liberties created by our responses to terrorism?
If you were to calculate probabilities of being effected by either warming or terrorism — multiply that probability by the cost (or damage) incurred should such an event affect you — would there be any appreciable difference in the result? Now, calculate the diminishing value of liberty as a result of the “solution” proposed for either event. Which side of the balance sheet wins?
