Opposites are created by people to understand an issue and then to debate and formulate where the line between fundamental values should be drawn. Vertical, horizontal, and criss-crossing relationships illustrate three ways in which opposite values are used in policy and legal debates. The author discusses the ironic situation created by the Supreme Court, which has adopted the private-public dichotomy as the central premise for making fourth amendment decisions, while consciously rejecting the distinction in making fifth amendment decisions. The author summarizes the thesis that conflict between fundamentally opposite values can be constructive, lists methods to follow when faced with these polarities, and calls for a philosophical recognition of the symbolic use of dichotomous words. 5 figures, 8 notes, and 63 references (Author abstract modified)