No, the time being used to establish the right standard was being spent in Plato's day. Now we know that this is a bad way to act, AND a bad way to run a countr

No, the time being used to establish the right standard was being spent in Plato's day. Now we know that this is a bad way to act, AND a bad way to run a country. You can never let the watcher watch themselves. Any attempts must be punished as heavily the crimes they could start to cover up. I go further in saying that these are powers people COULD NOT grant to government. Our legal philosophy (not just current laws) hold that there are things we cannot "agree" to - to be killed for instance, and we can't agree to something on someone else's behalf except in very limited circumstances, and until they are available to confirm those decisions themselves. Using a NSL letter to gag an otherwise legitimate court proceeding for a period of time wouldn't remove the checks and balances of society - but making seeking redress in court illegal altogether, does. And it effectively makes us slaves - having no power to control or petition our government. As above, we couldn't agree to that. As for support for the patriot act, 1) Bush knowingly lied about the perpetrators and circumstances of the 9/11 attacks, and the potential remedies. If this was a civilian action he'd be known as a criminal. Many people were convinced by his lies, but ultimately it was pushed through regardless of popular support. 2) It doesn't matter because you can't agree to take someone else's rights away and any government that pretends you can isn't a legitimate representative of any people. After all, we (The citizens of UN signatories) wouldn't let India end its current "rape crisis" by simply removing women's rights to complain about being raped.