In a free society, governments are not permitted to break the law for any reason.

Constitutionalists who understand the corrupt nature of our monetary
system are likely targets of an aggressive Justice Department, although the
litigants are nonaggressive as they practice civil disobedience in seeking
favorable court rulings.

Resisters to draft registration have been too numerous to prosecute.

The vocal opponents, those who publicly express their views that such
registration is unconstitutional, have been singled out as particularly
dangerous and prosecuted precisely because they spoke out.

In a free society, governments are not permitted to break the law for
any reason. Yet it has become common for legal authorities to entice citizens,
through entrapment, into breaking the law. Tempting individuals and officials
with bribes or solicitation of prostitution or offering drugs is frequently done.
FBI sting operations and Abscam-type operations are accepted procedures for
the Justice Department, permitting officers of the law to break the law to get
others to do the same.

When U.S. News reporter Daniloff received "secret" papers from
Soviet KGB agents in Moscow he was arrested. U.S. officials were outraged
at the nasty trick and called it a "set-up." Yet this is the identical procedure
followed by our government against our own citizens.

The New York Times explains editorially the purpose of zoning
(November 24, 1986): "Zoning has helped establish the principle that the
interests of property owners must yield to those of the public." Zoning under
current law, according to The New York Times, is inadequate, and the public
demands that more controls are needed to assure a proper working and living
environment. The only problem is, "who is the public" and why are
ownership rights subservient to public interest? I'm sure The New York Times
editors have a precise idea of who the public is and how its interest is best
served, according to their definition, but clearly it clashes with the entire
philosophic concept of private property ownership. If the concept of privately
owned property's being used "for the public interest" is not challenged, the
ideas of socialism will emerge victorious.

If welfare needs of any segment of society can be granted against the
wishes of society's productive segment, private property ownership will
disappear. If property can be confiscated by the arbitrary actions of the state,
the individual will also be expected to serve the state on command.

The more authoritarian the government is over the economy, the more
authoritarian it will be over the use of young people in forcing them to serve
in the military or national youth service to achieve what those in power
determine is in the "public good." In a free society, the individual cannot be
forced into serving the state, and the property he owns cannot be confiscated
for any reason, even that of a humanitarian nature. The needs of one person
cannot be used to justify the victimization of another by robbing him of the
fruits of his labor.

Traditionally the family has been the core unit in America, with
parents in charge of their children until adulthood. This means they are responsible
for their physical well-being, providing proper care and guidance. Permission
until recently, to treat a child medically was always granted by the parent, and
without proper consent, medical personnel were considered in violation of the
parents' rights if treatment were rendered. Today permission (and frequently
the financing) for this treatment is given by the state to the medical profession
to treat adolescents. It has gotten to the point where the M.D. is absolutely
protected and relieved of any responsibility to the parents. Twelve-year-old
children deserve respect, love, and treatment in a nonviolent manner, but
parents who raise and are responsible for their children deserve to know what
others may be doing to them. Don't parents deserve at least the same respect
regarding their children as others expect regarding their property?
When the state replaces the role of the parent in giving permission for
medical treatment, a serious flaw is introduced which is likely to undermine
our free society. Since a child is unable to assume responsibility for himself
or herself, the only choices are the parents (or legal guardians) or the
government. The government, through court rulings or legislation, should
never be permitted to perform the role of the parent.

Assuming responsibility for one's own acts was further undermined by
the Texas Supreme Court's 1986 ruling that a bartender was responsible for
the accident which one of his customers caused after leaving the
establishment. This is a perfect example of what happens when no one knows
what individual rights are! Once this concept is lost, the idea of selfresponsibility
is lost as well.

Since the Great Depression of the 1930's, federal laws have curtailed
individuals' rights to work in their own homes. The Founding Fathers, I'm
sure, never dreamed this could happen in the United States of America. Union
workers prompted this law to prohibit low-cost labor from doing jobs on a
piecemeal basis. No wonder the U.S. industry lost out to the low-cost labor
markets of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea!