You write well, certainly, but, you lack specificity.

When you refer to the government, you speak of a single, monolithic entity. Quite the contrary, our political system is a heavily layered set of different governments, stacked within each other like Russian dolls. City government, county government, state government, and federal government—to name a few.

[If the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are misused or entirely disregarded, no freedom can exist in this country. These documents are the only wall defending American rights and are the only things that prevent the government from taking rights by force (for that is the only way to take them)] - - - You can persuade someone to give up their rights—don't forget that. More to the point, I ask again—which government? The US Constitution is (well, WAS) a principally federal document. The states have their own constitutions that exist in addition to the Federal Constitution. Do not forget that, for almost a century, the blanket of liberties guaranteed by the Federal constitution did NOT apply to the states. It took a (rather left-wing) act of governmental power-grab during the 1860s to pass the 14th Amendment, which established the supremacy of the Federally guaranteed rights over the states' own constitutions. Without that act of force, the abolition of slavery by the 13th amendment could have been ignored by the slave-holding states. That's something to think about, isn't it?

[A republic is a type of government that, through fair elections and representation, introduces lawmakers from specific areas, who better know the needs of their people (as opposed to a lawmaker a thousand miles away, living in an entirely different culture and environment), and make laws on that basis. The system works so that, for instance, southern Californians are not bothered with the appropriation of money to melt ice from the highways of Vermont, nor do Vermonters have to vote about beach laws in Los Angeles.] - - - Not true—at least, not generally speaking. Once again, this all boils down to what level of government you are referring to. As a Los Angeleno myself, I can say that my lack of concern with the appropriation of funds to de-ice Vermont highways is due to the fact that said duty falls to the government of Vermont, and not the government of California. In that sense, you are correct. But, at the federal level, things are quite different. For instance, the appropriation of funds to build the federal interstate highway system would concern both the federal congressional representatives of Vermont, and those of California, even if the funds were being used to build more highways in California than Vermont. More generally, if we speak of national issues such as the National Endowment for the Arts or the Americans With Disabilities Act, the votes of our federal representatives affect the whole nation. If anything, you could say that a US congressperson has more of an impact on states OTHER than their own, seeing as their decisions affect all 50 states, yet they themselves only come from one of those states.

[While it is the government that takes these rights, many American citizens are willing to live out their lives oblivious to politics. They do not care about which rights they have or lose, so long as they have food and shelter, and enough money to buy a television or a data plan for a cell phone. Only when they believe their welfare is directly threatened will they act- they give the higher meaning of life and liberty no quarter in their hearts or minds.] - - - This is certainly true, and quite well said. The issue is, at heart, one of personal responsibility. Things would be so much better If more people were responsible for their actions. At the end of the day, a society is only as good as its worst citizen—hence, the constant need for improvement.

CV

In this modern era of rapid change, it can be difficult to keep track of everything that goes on. It's like intellectual overload.

nice essay. I think you could have given a specific example of a law that takes away our personal freedom, just so that a reader can more easily apply it to his own life, but your ideas are still very well-articulated.