>I agree about the seatbelts on children and I'm glad there are airbags, but the issue was loss of freedom via government intervention.

That's why I posed the question. When does government intervention become loss of freedom? When the government requires car manufacturers to put air bags in, it means we can't buy new cars without them. Is that a loss of freedom? I don't think so because it doesn't cost us any personal freedom.

The flip side of the question is when the loss of freedom is worth it. For example, traffic lights clearly limit our individual freedom, but it's a limit we're (mostly) willing to accept for the benefits it offers.

We regulate sewage systems and don't allow people to simply dump their slops out the window any more. Clearly, we've lost the freedom to do what we want with our waste, but few of us would argue that it's a bad thing, given the improved health of the society thanks to regulation of waste.

In forming societies and governments, we agree to give up some individual freedoms in exchange for better lives as a group. The question we run into on a regular basis is how much we're willing to give and for what benefit.

Tamar