10 of 10

No

Write now Article Tools

It's so humorous to hear debates about "freedom" without hearing definitions of "freedom". I have always strongly believed that words mean things and without clear definitions, there's no way for languange (the vehicle of thought) to be effective. Without effective thought or clear definitions, there's no way to debate a point.
So, having said that, freedom - in the sense of universal freedom - can best be defined as "the ability to do what is right without fear." Freedom only in the basest of terms is "the ability to do whatever one wishes." Of course, there's no way this can be achieved nor could it be enjoyed by everyone simultaneously. So, this definition is useless at best.

What is "right", then? Although this writer would happily say "whatever the Bible says is right", I will downshift (greatly) to the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers of this country and the ensuing leaders have put together what they believe are "rights" - that is, universal guarantees of liberty. These rights were not to be infringed. However, these rights guaranteed by government weren't free. They demanded that the laws of the land be followed. If a constituent committed murder and the law was the death penalty, that constituent was no longer guaranteed his rights. Responsibility came with rights. A great responsibility.
What "rights" are supposedly being infringed by the USA Patriot Act? Your "right" to a telephone conversation? The telephone you own is yours. The service that it gives you is a privilege. If you don't pay your bill, your telephone privileges will be shut down. You don't even have a "right" to the public phone. That phone is owned and serviced by an entrepeneur that demands you pay every time you place a call.
Did you realize that the electricity that fuels your home is not a right? You pay for the service! Did you realize that driving an automobile is a privilege? This privileged society is becoming more and more confused between privileges and rights.
I've heard it said that a man's home is his castle. Definitely. But if illegal things - especially things that endanger the public - are transpiring there then isn't it the responsibility of the government to stop the activity?
Shouldn't the first responsibility of any government be the protection of its own people? If it isn't, then it must be fascist.
Where I can certainly understand the concerns of civil libertarians, I would ask them to produce a number of people who were or have been abused by the Patriot Act. Meanwhile, we have already borne witness to the effectiveness of the Act with the dissolution of many terrorist plots here and in other countries.
What I'm seeing in the debate today is that certain people can understand that in our new society of technology and the possibility of mass destruction at any given moment can also understand that there comes great responsibilities that override our petty lusts of materialistic privileges.

Learn more about this author, Saul Carter.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Does the US Patriot Act undermine Americans' freedoms??
We want to hear your view. Write now!