Security and freedom. Where does the equilibrium of the two ideas lie? Or, does the equality of security and freedom not amount to anything more than a hill of beans now? According to the media sources of today, security outweighs freedom by astonishingly high standards. Some would pronounce security took this nation over on September 11, 2001, when more than three thousand innocent American citizens were killed due to terrorist acts against our way of life. The very term “terrorism” insinuates isolated attacks of violence and devastation against a body of government. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were exactly that, terrorist attacks. The attacks happened on a single day, within the period of four hours, in three separate locations with no more than twenty assailants at the helms of the attacks. Since then, the United States has spent more than five years, $350 billion, and more than 31,000 lives in its struggle against terrorism.
With that said, I would like to take the time to discuss the “bilateral natural law”. If there is one thing I have learned in my short lifetime, it’s that every single thought which any one human may have, also has an absolute counterpart. For example, optimism and pessimism. Is the glass partly empty or is the glass partly full? Another example, training a dog. One individual may furnish the dog with treats to demonstrate that it has done something good and a different individual may possibly award the dog with treats unless it has done something bad. I could keep going and going with the examples, however, this introduction would become large enough to fit every known written text into it. Anything that you or anybody else has ever thought about is predisposed to this innate law, as well as this dissertation. The ideas specified throughout the body of this text are not to be understood. Rather, they should be discussed and debated. The first paragraph of this text may have affronted scores of its readers. Conversely, I do not aspire to transform anyone’s ideologues, nor their values. Nor do I wish to cause harm. I am personally a conscientious objector, and hope to aid many people to begin to consider their actions before they construct the assessment to go through with any possibly negative actions. If people would stop to think with reference to both sides to their circumstances before they made a choice that may possibly harm someone else who may be implicated, we may boast a “superior” world.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
