The thought process that makes it OK to strip away one right is the same one used to strip away others. One problem we face in defending our rights is too many people only want to protect the rights they think apply to them.
Someone uses credit cards and checks so the right to use cash is not a concern to them. Someone else (Rosie) has a team of armed guards and rides around in a limo, so the right to own and carry a gun isn't important to her. The thought process is the same.
The small infringements of our rights grow into larger ones and we slip ever farther down the slope to subjugation. Stopping the erosion of our rights means stopping all erosion notjust the erosion of rights we are using at the moment.
I agree the components are related in the way you are explaining in your example. However, I believe the wording of the law "related transactions" actually is more limited than what you envision. As you know, the Patriot Law is extending the provisions to retailers...but the same notice requirements have been in effect with financial institutions for several years. Initially that law was notice of $10,000 or more per transaction. So the money launderers started getting multiple money orders for lesser amounts (on the same day) to avoid triggering the reporting ie 2 $6,000 money orders. Hence the change in the law. That is why I believe the related transactions refers to time span, not related items. Now, if you bought the TV and paid for it and five minutes later bought the DVD and sound system and paid for it, neither being over $10,000 but together they were, then I think you would trigger the reporting requirement...but again it is because of the time frame not the purchase. Since the law has not yet been tested, neither of us really knows but I have given you my opinion.
I agree with you. The problem in our country is many voices are not heard until the larger infringements occur, and by then it is too late.
For example.....My youngest son is playing Youth Basketball. Practice has started & my money has been accepted. Now, I learn parents will be required to sign "Parent's Code of Conduct." [Refs have feelings, too] I don't think so. I am 47 years old. The idea of the Dept of Parks & Rec (local gov't) forcing me to sign a paper promising I will act like an adult is not only humiliating, it is insulting and I refuse to sign it.
My family rolls their eyes and my 10 yr old hopes I will not embarass him. "What's the big deal? blah, blah, blah"
My 10 year old was my "surprise," meaning I am older than most of the other parents. I was sickened by the number of parents with the "great idea!" reaction. Most of them were in the 20-30 range.
My point is if we don't take our stands at home, with the seemingly little things, we won't have a snowball's chance in hell on the big issues.