[Skybird]

You need to balance both the interests of the community (as being represented by an elected government with the power to regulate the market) and freedom for markets.

If you leave it to a self-regulating state, you have a dictatorship by politicians turning into tyrants. If you have an economy regulating itself, you have a tendency to slavery, monopolism, and economic anarchy driven by unlimited selfishness - the total and nihilistic materialism you get additional and for free, then. Therefore, you need both as lomng as you do ot live alone on the planet. Business and community are antagonists. Social community wants business to serve it'S interests. Business wants community to serve it's interests. In a capitalistic order, you have to add: business wants no competition, but monopolism. The stronger your monopole, the more power you have to enforce your profit interests onto the community. the more competiton, the more compromise oyu have to accept, at the cost of your profit interests. In such a setting, the demand for selfregulating markets has nothing to do with freedom anymore. Monopolism prevents freedom, including the freedom of choice. You have seen that in the five-year-plan economies of the european East. Here, the state was political tyrant and economic monopolist at the same time.

As little regulation as possible, so that business can unfold and be creative, and can compete. As much regulation as needed to prevent monopolism and lacking competition, and protect the interests of the community from being thrown over by interests of the economy.

The idea of unregulated markets is dead since the current crisis at the latest. No matter what attempts there are in argument to blame other factors, the primary problem has been a financial system that has been left to itself to regulate itself - everything else is just an excuse attempting to avoid putting this holy golden cow of "self-regulating markets" into question. Unlimited greed, total lack of sense of responsibility, and maximum, criminal egoism has been the result. It simply does not work that way. It only works that way at the cost of the community, when the many have to repair the damage, and compensate for it, that is done by the few in the name of their own egoism. Self regulating market - that would only work if man would be a reasonable, altruistic being by nature and essence. But in fact, man is unreasonable, driven by irrational emotion, and a born egoist. we are Homo Sapiens - no rational Vulcans.

But all this and what you said has nothign to do with the basic principle of that statement: the more security, the less freedom - the more freedom, the less security. The more anti-terror-laws, the more limiting of basic rights. The more basic rights, the less prevention against terrorism.

You can't have both. you need to find a balance that you can live with. That means to not look at the individual event (or lack of), where the probabilities already have sprung to either 100 or to 0%, but to find a balance where the overall general probablities are such that you can accept the resulting ammount of limitations to your freedoms, and the remaining threats of terrorism.

That is the price of having an open society basing on the individual, instead of having a totalitarian one, where the state is all and the individual counts nothing.