I only hope Mr. Clinton read the speech himself. Especially the part where he said: "In America, we believe that freedom itself is indivisible." Well, some of us do. But does Mr. Clinton? I'm not so sure.

As I understand it, "indivisible" means that something can't be divided. Is Mr. Clinton saying that freedom can't be divided?

If so, why is he constantly trying to do it? His administration has been one big exercise in chipping away at personal liberty, while maintaining that he loves freedom.

For example, in the area of medical care, his objective has been to shift more and more decision-making from individuals to government. His first attempt was too flagrant a takeover of the system by government and so it went down in flames. Since then, he has taken a more circuitous route to the same destination through controls on insurance companies and expansion of government medical programs for children. The paper opposition known as the GOP has gone right along. Apparently, indivisible freedom does not include the freedom to make one's own decisions in a free medical-marketplace.

Mr. Clinton is also not so crazy about freedom when it comes to computer encryption, the process of encoding electronic information to keep it private. Software companies have written some powerful encryption programs for consumers but, for alleged national security reasons, the law prohibits them from being exported. The prohibition has stunted the development of international electronic commerce. Meanwhile, the administration is pushing an encryption regime that would compel us to, in effect, give the government a spare key to our computers so that, "if necessary," it could rifle our electronic records.

The president seems to separate education from freedom, as well. If freedom were fully protected, we wouldn't be taxed to support schools. We'd choose schools in the marketplace and pay out of our own pockets. That's what parental responsibility is all about. But Mr. Clinton is clearly on record in favor of "public" schools and wants to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money to prop up the failing system.

For Mr. Clinton, freedom seems to have little to do with keeping one's own money. It is peculiar, indeed, to rhapsodize about freedom while opposing tax cuts as "something for nothing." The only time he ever favors letting people hold on to their own money is when he can attach conditions. The government will return that dollar to you only if you spend it the way Bill Clinton wants you to spend it. Odd notion of freedom, I'd say.

Freedom apparently has nothing to do with owning guns either. Mr. Clinton has supported an array of restrictions on the right to own firearms. He uses every tragedy involving guns to push for more restrictions. Yet guns relate to the most fundamental of rights, the right to self-defense, which is why the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights.

If you thought freedom included the right to smoke without being taxed, you got that wrong. Mr. Clinton is pushing for a big increase in the cigarette tax, ostensibly to discourage children from smoking. But no one really believes that's the reason. He wants the bucks so he can engage in good old social engineering. At any rate, if he gets his way, you'll have to part with more of your own money whenever you light up.

The list of ways Mr. Clinton violates liberty is far longer and includes the war on drug users, the war on Microsoft, the war on landowners, the war on people who want to save for their own retirement, the war on freedom of association, and so on. Where's the indivisible part?

Let's hope the Chinese take Mr. Clinton's advice-and then promptly export the idea to the United States.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, editor of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty (The Foundation for Economic Education), and author of Separating School & State: How to Liberate America's Families (1995) and Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax (1998).

Send to a friend