Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society

In 1986, after fifty years, a modification of the law was made. But
there was a Computer Age IRS catch. People who wanted to work at home
(which many continue to do anyway) could do so if they got a
certificate of permission from the Department of Labor. The United States is
considered a free country, and yet a permit from the federal government is
needed to sew clothes in our own homes. My guess is that this little change
was more likely motivated by the desire of the IRS to find out where the
activity was, than to take a bold step in the direction of freeing up the labor
market.

In America we see excellent private homes for wayward children,
more successful than any state-run institution, being closed down by the
heavy hand of the government when owners refuse, for religious reasons, to
buy state licenses. This is done in the name of protecting the children from
harsh treatment. All evidence shows that the religious homes for children are
far superior to anything the state has to offer, yet are closed for failure to
register with the state. This is more evidence that the state now controls our
children, not parents or (non-state-designated) guardians.

Articles appear in medical journals debating whether choosing a
physician is a right or a luxury. (It's a shame that the correct answer is not
automatically known by everyone!)
The confusion over rights has caused numerous debates, such as
whether women have the right to join men's clubs. Women obviously have a
right to apply for membership in any group they wish, and a club has a similar
right to exclude anyone it wishes.

But the great debate goes on. A woman recently sued the Boy Scouts
because she claimed she had a right to be scout master. Women may want to
be scout masters, but where did they get this "right" to coerce a private
organization to change its rules regarding members and leaders?
Privacy is one of the most sacred elements of a free society. It is now
common to pass laws which routinely violate the Constitutional guarantee
that our homes and persons are not to be invaded by government agents.
When the title of a law incorporates the word "privacy," in true 1984
"new-speak" fashion, you can be certain it means the opposite. Government
secrets are more sacred in today's society than individual privacy. When
government information leaks occur, the FBI is called in to "protect"
government secrecy. The CIA, with its independent operations and funding, is
a law unto itself, engaging in war activities, conspiracy, and assassination.
Oliver North, with a straight face, on national television, magnificently
defended the "right" of the government to lie about covert activities. The only
resistance lying gets is when policy offends either the conservative or liberal
wing of the interventionists.

Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency
about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who
don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights.

Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance
companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone
already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company
owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance
companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual
suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing
them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I
believe, the Found Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.
The Supreme Court, in 1987, ruled that persons with contagious
diseases are "handicapped" and are entitled to protection under affirmative
action rules. If a person is fired because he has AIDS, typhoid fever or
hepatitis, he can now pursue his case in court.

Recently an alcoholic who developed cirrhosis of the liver demanded
a liver transplant, in the name of "equal rights." The state welfare program
assumed the obligation to provide care for the man, but insisted he quit his
alcoholic ways. The man refused, and the state held up on his liver transplant.
For this reason he sued the state, demanding his rights.
With confusion regarding rights, the end of constitutionally protected
liberty cannot be far off.

Society is filled with competing interests demanding their "rights."
Since no serious attempt has been made to define rights and limit
government's power to masquerade as economic equality in equal rights, the
confusion gets worse every year.

This is a serious flaw in today's political philosophy and, unless the
nature of the problem is identified, freedom in America cannot survive. A
lack of a precise standards for describing individual rights will destroy the
American way of life -- that gift from the Founding Fathers from which we
have all benefited.