fused to perform abortions! Tlie messagenis clear; the rights of some peoplendesen-e both protection and extention.nAs for others…nin effect, what emerges is an Orwelliannconcept of freedom; language isndistorted to give meanings to words thatncould not be found in any dictionary. Fornexample, there is a long tale about thenwoes homosexuals have experienced.nSurely they should be given theirn”rights.” And what do these rightsninclude? To name one, the right to rentnan apartment in your home, whethernyou care to lease to homosexuals or not.nThe author concedes that normallynpeople have the right to determine whonwill utilize their property; however,n20gnChronicles of Culturen”Gay people have traditionally beennobjects of hatred. . , . Any group sonabused needs special protection.”nBesides, discrimination “on account ofnsexual orientation … is, at bottom,nirrational.” And who, after all, could favorn”irrational rights”? It is not unlikenPravda’s explanation of the SovietnUnion’s refusal to aUow free emigration.nAfter all, the U.S.S.R. is the greatest placenin the world to live. Only crazy peoplenwould want to leave and the State, in itsngreat humanity, could not allow thenmentally ill to harm themselves byndeparting.nRegarding censorship, an extremenstandard is upheld; virtually any restrictionnon pornography is an attack on freenspeech. Does that mean that the publicnnnmust be involuntarily subjected to thenstuff because the drive-in theater visiblenfrom your picture window is rurming anconstant stream of X-rated flicks? Thenauthor approvingly quotes JusticenPowell, “we are inescapably captivenaudiences for many purposes.” Besides,nvalues are changing. The warning isnimplicit; you had better change withnthem.nIt is in this last area that Norwick andnhis cohorts really take the mask off andnreveal their “freedom” for what it actuallynis. Repeatedly, we are told that thenemergence of “new class” values isninevitable. Traditional concepts of sexnroles are “relics of a different age”; thenwidespread acceptance of homosexualitynis “only a matter of time”; soon the usenof marijuana and other “recreationalndrugs” will be “generally accepted.” Thenfreedom Norwick and company endorsenbears no relation to any real conceptionnof what freedom is, not even that conceptnadvocated by extreme libertarians.nNorwick’s liberty is merely the right ofnone group of self-centered, narcissisticnAmericans to impose their bizarrencultural values on the broader society.nAs such, it should be strenuouslynopposed.nUismantling America, will probablynbe read with enthusiasm and enjoymentnby the same people who wUl likenLobbying for Freedom. In a sense, that isnas it should be, for, as different as theynare, the bottom line of both volumes isnthe same; “Give us what we want,” and tonblazes with anyone else.nEssentially, the subject oiDismantlingnAmerica is regulation. Largely anmatter of state and local concern, thenregulation of business and mdustry didnnot come under Federal purview untilnthe turn of the century, when popularncrusading and muckraking against thenraUroads, the “trusts,” and the “robbernbarons” led to the creation of the firstnregulatory agencies. Small in scope andnlimited in powers, these bureaucraciesngenerally operated only within specificnareas of responsibility. It wasn’t until then