Response to edit: > you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment I'm not really sure what dichotomy you think I'm arguing. I'm not sayi

Response to edit: > you argue a false dichotomy that has nothing to do with my comment I'm not really sure what dichotomy you think I'm arguing. I'm not saying we can only do one of (a) make people safer and (b) make people feel safer, I'm saying that only one of those is a good use of public resources. > Besides, that would be similar to asking the public about the next chess move for Kasparov; most people are not qualified to answer. If you're asking people what should be done to make them safer, that is outside their area of expertise, and I'm happy with not asking them about that (they'd probably answer stupid things like a Transport Security Administration or more scanners, or fewer liquids on planes or racially segregated flights, with only English being allowed to be spoken). If on the other hand the question is 'how much are you prepared to pay to feel safer (while not actually being safer)', that is definitely within the competence (and right) of the public to decide. To decide that people's money should be spent 'for their own good' on making them feeling safer and not even being prepared to ask them if that is true is arrogant, patronising and the opposite of safeguarding freedom.