Dear Editor: The Chinese government brutally represses "unauthorized" churches-those which aren't controlled by the State. (See World Press Review, May 1994.) Does China thereby promote atheism? China's constitution establishes five faiths: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism. To be tolerated, each group must kow-tow to the rulers. Their five-fold classification, like milder systems in India and Israel, ignores minor religions, such as Baha'i and the Unitarian- Universalists. Beijing cares not one sacred fig for "philosophical materialism" versus supernaturalism. It cares only for political power-and thus persecutes many Tibetan Buddhists, independent Protestant "house churches," and "unpatriotic" Catholics who illegally follow the Pope. This is sheer statism, not atheism. Infidels and libertarians should speak up for religious freedom in China. Tahanga Research Association San Diego, CA Dear Editor: The Clinton administration has mandated all federal agencies to use a National Security Agency data security technology called the "Clipper chip" to safeguard data from hackers and industrial spies. If Clipper was truly intended for protection, why include a "back door" that permits government agents to spy on alleged criminals and terrorists? Few of them are dumb enough to use a phone or computer system they know the government can monitor, particularly when they can use any of a number of free or commercial unbreakable encryption programs, like PGP. Rather than spend millions of tax dollars developing Clipper, why didn't the NSA just use PGP? All other encryption algorithms are available to the public, yet the NSA refuses to reveal Clipper's, so businesses cannot determine for themselves how secure it is. The economy of scale created by the government mandate of Clipper may destroy domestic encryption suppliers and induce all of the telecommunication equipment suppliers to put Clipper in their products (telephones, modems, fax machines, cable-TV encoders/decoders, etc.), making Clipper a pervasive domestic surveillance tool. The government claims that only government agents will have the key to the back-door of Clipper. That's a lot of people these days. Most have a price. The more widely used the Clipper the higher will be the price for the key. You can bet industrial spies and blackmailers will have the key before long. Then what? Nix the chip. Sincerely, Bill Holmes Escondido, CA Dear Editor: I was horrified to read that the Clinton administration is planning to create a federal identification card that will be required for interaction with any federal agency-and which could soon be required for almost any transaction in the nation. A story in the May 9 issue of Digital Media: A Seybold Report (Ziff-Davis Publishing) reports that the new ID card "would be automatically connected with the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Treasury, the IRS, the banking system, and a central database of digital signatures for use in authenticating e-mail and other transactions." The card might even take the form of a PCMCIA computer card holding megabytes of information about its owner-and about his or her buying habits, lifestyle choices, political views, and anything else a government bureaucrat decided to keep track of. This proposal is the most dangerous, high-tech grab for surveillance and control over a people yet tried. As a libertarian, I am appalled, but people of any political stripe should be concerned. The potential for government abuse (through both malice and simple error) is immense. Remember how our Social Security numbers would "never be used for identification?" (For that matter, remember how the politicians were going to invest and protect the money they took from us instead of squandering it in the general fund?) Remember how the income tax started at only a few percent, and only from the rich? Call, FAX, or write your representatives now, and help put a stop to this disaster before it happens. Sincerely, Glen Allport La Jolla, CA Dear Editor: According to the 4/4/94 Wall Street Journal, a recent Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans believe that Social Security should be made voluntary. Similar polls indicate that an even higher percentage of Americans understand the counterproductive effects of drug prohibition and want drugs re-legalized or decriminalized. Yet when I talk to Democrat and Republican candidates, they refuse to announce their personal preferences for privatizing Social Security and decriminalizing drugs, because they believe it would be political suicide. Libertarian candidates are obviously closer to the mainstream on these issues, yet Libertarians are portrayed as radical. What gives? Sincerely, Steven Currie San Diego, CA Dear Editor: However mean-spirited it may sound, Libertarians are firmly against foreign aid programs, because they actually harm the recipients. That sounds improbable to those who open their wallets generously to organizations "feeding the poor." Yet, the reality is much different, as reported by Michael Maren, a former Peace Corps, Catholic Relief Services, and U.S. Agency for International Development worker. "Most food aid has little to do with need and everything to do with getting rid of surplus food. Kenya was not a country facing starvation when I worked there. Many of the projects I started were in the rich agricultural land of the central and western parts of the country. In fact, around the world, only about 10% of food aid is targeted at emergency situations . . ." Harmless as this might at first sound, sending food to areas where there is already food creates serious problems. It decreases demand for locally produced commodities, subsidizes the production of cash crops, and fosters dependence among those who receive the aid. Since private voluntary organizations (PVOs) can only operate with the approval of the host government, they typically end up supporting the government leader's political goals, rewarding the government's friends, punishing its enemies, and providing fodder for a vast system of political patronage. That's exactly what happened in Somalia, where the government and the generals had been playing games with food aid since 1981. It was clear that the program was working to maintain a corrupt dictator and turn nomads into relief junkies. Refugees poured over the borders and into camps, where they were fed day after day, year after year by PVOs, while little effort was made to break their growing dependence. In 1987, a World Food Program report stated that Somalia had actually produced a surplus of food that year, yet PVOs continue to distribute free food and collect U.S. government money for administering the delivery. Inevitably, the country adapted to foreign aid. Indigenous food-distribution networks withered and died. Meanwhile, the corrupt government officials got fat and rich. Mary Szterpakiewicz Escondido, CA Why Our Guns? Dear Editor: In the State of the Union Address, Bill Clinton called for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, because they have "no legitimate sporting purpose." Not only is this not true-most target shooters use semi-automatics-he misses the point. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms has nothing at all to do with duck hunting or target shooting. Rather, it is intended to protect us from tyrannical government. The framers of our constitution were afraid of our government, so they built in limitations. They gave us the right to free speech, so that we may speak in opposition to our own government. They gave us the right to assemble, even in opposition to our own government. And, as a last resort, they gave us the right to keep and bear arms in potential opposition to our own government. Scary? Yes. Necessary? Probably. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Don't misunderstand me-our current government is the best in the world, and I do not advocate revolution. However, Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians all agree that a good government can turn bad. I hope we never have to use them, but let's just say I sleep a little easier at night knowing there are 200 million firearms in private hands. John Wallner La Jolla, CA