From: Randall Parker 

In article ,
blucy{at}mediaone.net says...
> What I was referring to was safety in the street, especially in urban areas.
I
> have to be careful if I go out my front door after dark.
>
> Is that free? I don't think so.

Bill,

You are using a different definition of freedom.

I'm reminded of the old mayor of Philadelphia. He was once asked a question
in a press conference in which the reporter referred to "the unsafe
streets of Philadelphia". Rizzo replied in all seriousness "The
streets are safe. Its the people who are dangerous".

If the people are dangerous but the government is not telling you what you
can read, what you can say, or where you can work and whether you can work
then you are free in a political sense.

Now, are we free of the aging process? Are we free of mortal restraints?
No. Are we free of the threat of drunk drivers or serial killers? No, of
course not. We live in this world and this is what people are like.

I do not want to give up freedom in a political sense in order to get
security. I realize that many of you (particularly Democrats) don't see it
that way. Therefore I honestly view you as threats to my own freedom even
though I don't think you are a threat to me walking down the street.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5