By definition, government is control.
Control is accomplished by rules.
These rules maintain the social structure.
The rules define individual relationships within the group.

History is teaching us that:

• The best social condition is the greatest individual liberty consistent with maintaining a social structure.
• Free societies are more productive.
• Free societies are less belligerent.

There is always tension between the individual and the group -- between individual liberty and the common good. Societies that look more to the latter tend toward more authoritarian rule.

Now there is a legitimate problem between liberty and man's ability to effect his environment. Technology has given individuals and/or small groups the power to drastically effect local environments. Whether this power extends to the global environment is now unknown. Certainly there will come a time when man has global power. The huge problem becomes how to balance man's power over the environment and individual liberty.

Societies produce rules that describe sanctions for behavior detrimental to society. As individual power increases, after-the-fact social remedies become less acceptable. We cannot permit people to set off nuclear bombs and then charge them with a criminal act. The amount of carnage is not acceptable and must be prevented.

The conundrum lies here -- finding rules that allow pre-destruction restriction when necessary and still deny such restriction when dealing with the myriad other problems. Liberty cannot prevail when authority can restrict behavior because one might commit an unacceptable act.

In the case of nuclear bombs, our first approach was to hide knowledge about their construction. Now the knowledge is out and we have switched to restricting the materials needed. Soon that will no longer be possible. Then where the next barricade?

Both approaches result in reduction of individual liberty. Weighing the possible consequences, we have found both acceptable. At some time, liberty restrictions could become less acceptable than a huge devastation even though it is unthinkable now. Is the choice to suffer some devastation or to live in an highly authoritarian regime?

It seems we are being reasonably forced toward more authoritarian government and must find new answers to preserve liberty.