I will not fly.

To explain why, I'll begin with the now-familiar threat uttered last week by a 31-year-old software programmer:

"If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested."

And these are the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I've heard the latter used to defend the former. That, in my opinion, demonstrates both a lack of common sense and a misunderstanding of liberty.

It seems pretty simple to me. The more inventive the terrorists become -- secreting IEDs in shoes or underwear, for example -- the more invasive our security measures must be. Profiling must be more aggressive. Random searches (not triggered by profiling) must be more frequent and less predictable.
Right now, air-travel security involves long lines and big hassles, scanners that can see our nether parts and, if required, pat-downs during which a gloved, uniformed stranger touches those parts. If we want to keep airplanes from falling out of the sky, that's (part of) what has to be done. It is what it is.

Some claim that the scans violate personal privacy and that the pat-downs are a form of sexual assault. While I'll grant that exposing our bodies to x-ray vision might tread on some folks' fragile sensibilities, we do not have a fundamental right to shield ourselves from a measure intended to facilitate the security of a commercial aircraft.

The contention that a security agent's touching of breasts, buttocks and genitals is tantamount to criminal sexual assault -- or even sexual in nature -- is patently absurd. There's neither sexual purpose nor criminal intent.

In support of current security measures, it's become cliché to say that flying is "a privilege, not a right." That misses the mark, I think.

Traveling by air isn't a privilege -- it's a choice.

When we choose to fly we accept the inconvenience of security checkpoints and, if it's our unlucky day, the embarrassment of a full-body scan or a pat-down. We live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Air-travel security is not a violation of our liberties.

Touch my junk, please.

I understand that none of that explains why I choose not to fly.

It's not because I believe that air travel somehow should be made completely safe. The Transportation Security Administration, along with private-sector screeners employed at 16 U.S. airports, overall are doing a thankless job as well as they can under the circumstances.

I can accept (and until now have accepted) a certain degree of risk. That risk is about to rise to a level which I'm unwilling to assume.

Next Wednesday, arguably among the year's busiest at U.S. airports, is National Opt-Out Day:

"It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an 'enhanced pat down' that touches people's breasts and genitals in an aggressive manner. You should never have to explain to your children, 'Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK.'"
"You have the right to opt-out of the naked body scanner machines.... All you have to do is say 'I opt out' when they tell you to go through one of the machines. You will then be given an 'enhanced' pat down."
"The government should not have the ability to virtually strip search anyone it wants without cause. The problem has been compounded in that if you do not want to go through the body scanner, the TSA has made the alternative perhaps even worse by instituting 'enhanced' pat downs. ... We do not believe the government has a right to see you naked or aggressively touch you just because you bought an airline ticket."

Yes, it's silly. In spite of that -- or perhaps because of it -- Rep. Ron Paul (natch) has introduced the American Traveler Dignity Act:

"Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation to protect Americans from physical and emotional abuse by federal [TSA] employees conducting screenings at the nation’s airports. ...I hope we can pass this legislation and protect Americans from harm and humiliation when they choose to travel."

I predict that in a society infected by political correctness and misguided anti-government sentiment, protests against invasive security measures ultimately will succeed. Even if Paul's or similarly inane legislation fails, TSA reflexively will dial back its screenings and searches -- count on it.

In a perversion of liberty, sensibilities will triumph over security. The risk of traveling by air will increase.

Somewhere -- probably within our own borders -- the terrorists are laughing at us.