>>Jake,
>>
>>You've mentioned 'absolute freedom' and 'absolute sovereignty' multiple times in this thread.
>>
>>Absolute means "complete and without restriction" or "not limited by law." I'm saying that civilization requires acceptance that our freedom must be bound by laws for the greater good. Absolute freedom is the opposite.
>
>Again, who is advocating this straw man that you have once again smited?
>
>>With this statement you've supported the State seizure of private property for a traffic violation. That is but one form of overbearing governmental control that this nation's founders specifically wrote the Constitution to protect the citizenry from.
>>
>>When I was in Florida earlier this week I was told that speeders risk vehicle confiscation and that this exerts a dramatic effect. I'd also note that many states allow seizure of cars used by drunk drivers.
>
>I'd note that those are grossly unconstitutional seizures of private property.
>
>These types of laws are a perfect showcase of the incremental deterioration of our rights over time.
>Start with seizure of drug dealers property. Then seize drunk drivers property. Next seize speeders' property. Next?
>That's to say nothing of eminent domain laws and the disastrous 2005 Kelo decision.
>
>>IMHO running a red light is another predictable and unreasonable risk for other road users. I'd like that risk removed so that my wife and children and everybody else can be safer.
>
>Why stop with red light runners? How about any driving violation since they're designed for public safety?
>
>- 1 MPH over the speed limit. Seizure.
>- Illegal U-turn. Seizure.
>- Talking on cell phone. Seizure of car and cell phone.
>
>>If you are saying that removal is too great a penalty, this is something that people can avoid 100% if they want to. If people know they risk loss of vehicle if they run red lights, perhaps we will see fewer red-light runners and certainly they will have no complaint if it happens to them.
>
>This is your justification and you honestly wonder why I come to the conclusion that you favor tyrannical central control by the State?
>Once you establish that we can abolish rights for the "greater good", you no longer have any rights.
>
>>For the rest: assuming that you drive safely rather than insisting on your right to do as you please, how are you interpreting "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" in this context?
>
>You're willingly sacrificing Constitutional rights to private property for the possibility of a little safety. The quote fits like a glove.

It's a balance that is difficult to achieve and we often waiver to either side periodically. This gentleman has an interesting viewpoint:

http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i05/05b01301.htm

I definitely lean towards the 'curtail rights ONLY when all other methods have failed and public safety is at risk.'