> It is your error to interpret such a phrase as an authorization for the government to take away individual liberties of law abiding citizen in order to reduce perceived risks
It's part of how the laws get created. "Law abiding" takes on fascinating meaning when the laws infringe on those "individual liberties", and the grounds for the law are challenged. Whether you believe that individual liberty is the ultimate goal of government, the legislature, the courts, the government, and most of civilized history does not. It's one of _several_ goals of most governments, and a laudable one, but not an absolute goal.
> First, those two goals cannot be achieved simultaneously: you can't have a society that is governed rationally and that simultaneously is free. Second, even if rational government were desirable, it couldn't be realized in practice; the more rational you attempt to make government, the more corrupt it becomes.
Perfection isn't possible. _Anything_ taken to excess becomes corrupt. It's why governments change and respond to the people who make them up, whether peacefully or on occasion violently. And it's why they attempt to balance the rights of individuals against the safety of others: it's historically one of the clearest reasons for law and governmental intervention. Gun laws, zoning laws for hazardous businesses, fences around railroads, and eminent domain used to confiscate land in flood zones and erect dams are all classic examples of government doing exactly that.