The essay is full of slippery slopes. It advocates against "government monopoly of medical care", arguing that if the government knows everyone who's getting c

The essay is full of slippery slopes. It advocates against "government monopoly of medical care", arguing that if the government knows everyone who's getting care it can discover you. This applies to essentially every government service: social security, taxation, driver's licenses, regulations on utilities, etc. etc. etc. It's not a dissimilar stretch to say that because murder investigations have led police to develop sophisticated forensics departments that the author would be against murder laws as well. After all, if the government can discover you were at a crime scene, couldn't it also know who was in your attic? It's just a blatantly terrible test, wrapped up in faux wisdom and scare tactics. Balancing of rights is far more complicated than this and deserves better treatment. In fact, _most_ issues are complicated and don't readily yield to this kind of simple test. Frustrating though it is, it's a reality we have to deal with if we want to be at all fair and truly address complex issues.