You can not say both this:

> The government should not have the choice on whether or not to protect citizens, that's their job, citizens are depending on them to perform that action.

And this:

> If I want to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or smoke marijuana, that should be my choice, not yours to make for me, as long as it doesn't affect you.

Sorry, let me clarify, the government has the responsibility to protect me from things that I have no control over, like a foreign invasion, terrorist attacks, and other citizens (and government agencies) obstructing my rights.

Makes perfect sense to me, do you still think that they are mutually exclusive statements?

If it's about decreasing the chances of dying because of the actions of someone else at all costs (economic, personal, etc) - then the first thing the government should do is ban cars for the vast swathes of the population that don't strictly require a car (i.e. live next to a big city). That's 40'000 easily avoidable deaths each year - all they take is some inconvenience from everyone and a bit of investment in public transport infrastructure, in exchange for a dozen 9/11's worth of terrorism avoided every single year. As a bonus, the US's oil consumption would plummet and it would almost instantly achieve any environmental targets it can dream of.

What's that - you still want the freedom to drive? Even though it involves a fairly significant (0.01%) risk of dying because of things not under your control? Well, some people want the freedom to not be monitored all the time, even though it involves a much smaller than 0.01% risk of dying because of a terrorist attack. And all people should, and would, if terrorism didn't capture the imagination so vividly.

If we can get the US government to divert 75% of the money spent towards terrorism prevention towards autonomous vehicle research and electric vehicle subsidizing, then let's do it.

Maybe you're right, maybe we're both partially correct, it's a complicated issue and I do appreciate the discussion.

It's a cost/benefit analysis, though. The benefits are miniscule: you protect fewer people than die every year due to drunk driving or many other causes, and at a cost that harms us all.

What if I want the freedom to communicate privately? Ok, we'll only spy on the terrorists. But how do we know you're not a terrorist? We'll have to read your email before determining whether we can read your email or not...

> While I know people would be healthier and "better off" by eating healthy, I have no right to force people to eat a certain way.

You also have no right to go through their private communications unless you have a direct probable cause. (IANAL, the exact terms are probably different, but you get the idea)