Differing Worldviews in Higher Education

Differing Worldviews in Higher Education

Differing Worldviews in Higher Education Two Scholars Argue Cooperatively About Justice Education

Four Arrows Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, USA

Walter Block Loyola University, New Orleans, USA

SENSE PUBLISHERS ROTTERDAM/BOSTON/TAIPEI

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6091-350-1 (paperback) ISBN: 978-94-6091-351-8 (hardback) ISBN: 978-94-6091-352-5 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers, P.O. Box 21858, 3001 AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands https://www.sensepublishers.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2011 Sense Publishers No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

DEDICATION

Four Arrows thanks Chief Seattle for warning us that we would eventually learn that we cannot eat money. Walter Block thanks Adam Smith for his invisible hand, Friedrich Hayek for his spontaneous order and Murray Rothbard for blazing the path to Austro-libertarian anarcho capitalism. Both authors of this book would like to thank Walter Block’s Loyola University research assistants Maria Missura, Andrew Naquin and especially Michael O’Brien for help with references, proper headers, footers and pagination and other such copy editing matters.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction: An Intellectual Adventure.............................................................. 1 2. Academic Freedom.............................................................................................. 9 3. Ecological Justice .............................................................................................. 37 4. Wealth Distribution ......................................................................................... 113 5. A Case Study: Protesting Arizona’s Anti-hispanic Legislation....................... 173 6. Conclusion: Disagreement, Non-violence and Friendship .............................. 213 References............................................................................................................ 217 About the Authors ................................................................................................ 235

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION An Intellectual Adventure

WHAT ARE THE GOALS FOR THIS BOOK?

We two authors, one an American Indian with an Indigenous worldview and a liberal inclination (Four Arrows), the other a Jewish atheist with a Western worldview and a libertarian orientation (Walter E. Block), employ “cooperative argumentation” to accomplish what an amazon.com reviewer said about a book on this topic (Makau and Marty, 2001): “Cooperative Argumentation gets us past the fighting in debate, and moves us toward the real power that can be found in understanding someone else’s argument.” In our book, this “power in understanding” refers specifically to one of the most controversial issues in higher education- the teaching of social justice. The specific problem we address relates to teaching for the sake of justice in the world. It is the stalemate that has essentially stifled authentic social justice education. The stalemate is a result of polemics on one side or the other that do not contribute sufficiently to real understanding. Both authors agree, although we acknowledge exceptions that will be noted later, that Silver’s (2007, pp. 535–550) central argument is largely valid. He points to the lack of historical analysis of the declared and tacit roles of higher education institutions with regard to society and social change. Although we do not intend such an analysis per se, we hope that our pursuit of truth will provide schools and teachers with a better understanding of why this topic is so controversial and what exactly the issues are so they can be better addressed in the classroom. Research in social justice education reveals a need for doing this (Kymlicka, 1998; Parker, 2001). Bickmore (2008, p. 162) states the need clearly: The need for teachers to develop the kinds of substantial knowledge bases that can invite and guides socially critical questioning and debate is probably more important and more difficult to remedy that is often acknowledges social education research. It requires sophisticated content knowledge for teachers to handle complex topics in a student centered and open (constructively conflictual) manner in light of global diversity and justice concerns. Simon (2001, p. 219) states that “instead of shying away from such controversy, it can serve as the motivation frame and quality control mechanism of teacher development” and we can help educators plunge headfirst into such opportunities. Before engaging in a dialogue about our disagreements on salient matters that pertain to this goal, we realize certain foundational agreements must be shared. For one, we agree that a “pursuit of truth” is more of a commitment to conversation 1

CHAPTER 1

than to finding some absolute premise. We thus employ Palmer’s (1998, p. 104) notion of truth in our dialogue: “truth is an eternal conversation about things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline.” We will do our best not to impose any a priori assumption about truth or validity, and will thus develop, defend or modify any position according to the “natural logic” our words convey or do not convey (Borel, 1989). Another agreed-upon assumption is that “argumentation should be valued as the elixir of life of participatory democracy” (Eemeren, 1995, p. 144). If argumentative discussion is to be such a vital tool for managing democratic processes, it must include critical, authentic, honest and open-minded dialogue and not merely a political monologue intended to demagogue the reader. In trying to respectfully and cooperatively argue “against” one another’s position, we of course will be conscious of the impact of our statements on the reader. Our goal, however, rather than a competitive “win,” as in a debate format, is that we truly want the reader to gain as much or more understanding about the topic as we hope to garner by writing about it. In this way all of us will be better able to make action-oriented decisions about higher education and Social, Economic and Ecological Justice (SEEJ) in the real world. We realize that in forensic, scholarly and political arguments, the all too usual practice is to vehemently represent a position and not to be conciliatory. We also know that both of our strong personalities and convictions as relate to the matters at hand require that any change in our current positions will have to be hard won. We do not see this as a deterrent to our cooperative goals. The dialectical norms of cooperation and rhetorical norms of zeal can be compatible (Leff, 1999). A third initial agreement as relates to our goals for this text is related to Coleman’s (1989, p. 197) observation that “consenting to a process is not the same thing as consenting to the outcomes of the process.” We have entered into this partnership fully aware of the large differences in our reasoning, premises, conclusions and interpretations about social and ecological justice agendas in higher education. Although we can hope to move to a third position, we neither expect for this to happen nor do we necessarily believe it to be ideal. Our fourth initial agreement is about an operational definition for SEEJ. This as it happens, is more difficult to do than would appear at first glance. One possible definition accepts that the ultimate vision for all three justice arenas (social, economic and ecological) relates to the pursuit of values resulting in a redistribution of economic, social and political resources. Thus, this first perspective agrees with the Environmental Protection Agency’s official definition for environmental justice as being sufficient for our definition for SEEJ in general. The EPA (n.d.) states: Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair Treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting

2

INTRODUCTION

from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies. We need only remove the word “environmental” to make this definition work sufficiently for its application to “social, economic and ecological” contexts for higher education. Thus, the first iteration of our working definition for SEEJ, adapted from the EPA, is as follows: Social, economic and ecological justice refers to the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of laws, regulations and policies. “Fair Treatment” means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative consequences that result from industrial, municipal or commercial operations or the execution of local, state or federal laws or practices. But there are difficulties here. Walter believes that this definition is compatible with the philosophical vision of people on the left side of the political spectrum, only. Four Arrows is unsure about that claim, suspecting that the concept of “fair treatment” is less political than it is a core aspect of any definition relating to the idea of “justice.” Owing to this early disagreement about a working definition for SEEJ, accompanied by an agreement between us that the reader deserves at least some agreed upon parameters for our subject matter, we commence our dialogue in this Introduction. We do so in an effort to reveal some understanding for ourselves and the reader that will allow us to move forward in addressing the chapter topics. Walter: Social justice typically refers to affirmative action and non discrimination. But, in contrast, only free association is compatible with libertarianism. Here, people are free to discriminate against others on the basis of “race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income,” to say nothing of baldness, beauty (lookism), tastes in music or art or anything else under the sun. Economic justice supports egalitarianism and treating equals equally. But, in the laissez faire capitalist society, the only requirement is that no one may initiate violence against anyone else or his property. There is no necessity to treat anyone equally or fairly (assuming no fraud). Ecological justice is associated with forced recycling, prohibitions of private ownership of endangered species, and opposition to the privatization of forests, waterways, garbage dumps, etc. Whereas, again in sharp contrast, free market environmentalists analyze ecological difficulties as the result of government ownership or the tragedy of the (unowned) commons. And, it is a matter of sublime indifference whether or not “racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, … bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal environmental programs and policies.” In the free market economy, there would not be any “negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations.” There would be, moreover, the complete absence of any “federal, state, local and tribal” governmental “programs and policies.” 3

CHAPTER 1

How, then, to define SEEJ if the tradition approach outlined above will not suffice? One can resort to a second alternative. Here, we resort to a stipulative set of definitions: “Social justice” refers to plain old ordinary justice, only applied to social considerations; “economic justice” refers to plain old ordinary justice, only referring to economic issues; and “ecological justice” refers to plain old ordinary justice, only as it concerns environmental concerns. In this manner, we could have “baseball justice,” which, presumably, would refer to following the rules of this sport; or “music justice” which would apply to reading the score carefully, and playing the right notes. This is a bit silly, it must be conceded, because we have a perfectly good word for all of this, namely, plain old simple “justice,” and Occam’s Razor inclines us against all such multiplications of nomenclature. But, at least, this second perspective has the virtue of not offending any of the reaches of the political economic spectrum. Four Arrows: I disagree with a number of Walter’s assertions, such as his claim that in a free market economy there are no negative environmental consequences. This reminds me of a passage in his enchanting book, Defending the Undefendable, where he says there is nothing intrinsically wrong with littering (1976, p. 110). In light of the plastic debris problem in our oceans, a “tragedy of the commons,” I hope he will come to acknowledge during the writing of this present book that unregulated production, transportation and littering is a “tragedy of the commons” related to unregulated littering (as well as to the unrestricted production of plastic in the first place) at some later point in our text! At this point I think it is more important to focus on my possible agreements with him so we can move toward a mutually agreed upon definition of our terms. I am willing to agree that social, economic and ecological justice (SEEJ) is more about the problem of initiating violence against anyone than it is about egalitarianism. Also, I am in accord with him that when we invoke SEEJ, we are merely referring to the universally accepted concept of “justice” (the “plain, old, ordinary” kind) as applied to social, economic or ecological issues. So perhaps we have already accomplished something. Unfortunately, if our working definition of SEEJ were thus something like, “SEEJ refers to the avoidance or correction of acts of violence and the application of principles of justice to social, economic and ecological issues,” we would next have to agree on a definition for violence and a definition of “justice,” and this may also be difficult, especially if it brings us back to the concept of “fair treatment” on which Walter and I disagree. Beginning with defining violence, figuratively speaking, it is often equated with injustice and there we go again, as in “doing violence to the truth.” Webster’s Online Dictionary is equally ambiguous and defines violence as “injury by or as if by distortion, infringement or profanation” in addition to the “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (n.d.).” The Violence Prevention Alliance of the World Health Organization defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, 4

INTRODUCTION

maldevelopment, or deprivation.” It also refers to “collective violence “as “violence committed by larger groups of individuals and can be subdivided into social, political and economic violence (n.d.).” Finally, I refer to Silverstein’s (1971, p. 67) idea that people can suffer the effects of violence without “any change in the present situation, without any overt, physical action taking place.” He was referring to “status-quo” policies such as Jim Crow laws, etc. So I ask Walter, if we accept as a working definition what I suggested, i.e. that SEEJ refers to the avoidance or correction of acts of violence and the application of principles of justice as related to social, economic and ecological issues,” can he generally accept the possibilities above for defining the notions of violence and justice? I am willing to interpret the concepts implied by SEEJ as more about a process that can be best addressed on a case by case basis than in terms of a black and white definition. But in my judgment it must at least relate to a lack of violence and an application of justice that includes the ideas conveyed in the definitions generally associated with these two terms (violence and justice). Walter: I greatly appreciate Four Arrow’s characterization of my book Defending as “enchanting.” That book has been reviewed many a time without that adjective ever being applied to it. I will reserve discussion of what I meant there about littering, plastics in the oceans, the tragedy of the commons, government regulations and other environmental issues, until we reach the chapter of the present book that deals with these issues. I agree full well, and enthusiastically so, with Four Arrow’s contention that justice is intimately and negatively related to violence. At this point, I must throw a compliment his way. Initially I opposed placing a discussion of SEEJ definitions in this introduction. I thought we were so far apart that we should reserve our analysis of it to a later chapter, where we could adopt far more adversarial stances. But, he asked me to be patient, try it his way, and see if we couldn’t come to some sort of accord. He felt it important to at least define what we would be doing, at the outset. I complied with his request. I am surprised, I must admit, but glad I followed his lead in this regard, for now, with this equation of justice and lack of initiatory violence, I really think we have achieved his goal. I still maintain that this is a stipulative definition, not a reportive one, but we can more closely examine these issues later in the book. Challenges to SEEJ definitions have been and continue to be the starting point for disagreements about whether or not higher education should be in the business of promoting it. Volumes have been written about justice and social justice and we have no intention here of revisiting this literature, at least not in this introduction. Suffice it to say that we are fully aware that some, such as Hayek (1978, p. 69–70), believe that: In a system in which each is allowed to use his knowledge for his own purposes the concept of ‘social justice’ is necessarily empty and meaningless, because in it nobody’s will can determine the relative incomes of the different people, or prevent that they be partly dependent on accident. 5

CHAPTER 1

We are equally aware that others, like those members of the Council of Europe believe SEEJ is sufficiently understood so as to make it a priority for higher education. According to Harkavy and Huber (2007, p. 167): We subscribe to the responsibility of higher education to foster citizen commitment to sustainable public policies and actions that go beyond considerations of individual benefits. We accept our responsibility to safeguard democracy and promote a democratic culture by supporting and advancing within higher education as well as society at large, the principles of democratic and accountable structures, processes and practices; active democratic citizenship; human rights, mutual respect and social justice; environmental and social sustainability; dialogue and peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, we believe our definition allows for both opposing positions to make their arguments. Novak (n.d.), whose conservative views tend to support Hayek’s concerns, would appear to accept our definition as “ideologically neutral”: Social justice rightly understood is a specific habit of justice that is “social” in two senses. First, the skills it requires are those of inspiring, working with, and organizing others to accomplish together a work of justice. The second characteristic of “social justice rightly understood” is that it aims at the good of the city, not at the good of one agent only. One happy characteristic of this definition of the virtue of social justice is that it is ideologically neutral. It is as open to people on the left as on the right or in the center. Its field of activity may be literary, scientific, religious, political, economic, cultural, athletic, and so on, across the whole spectrum of human social activities. The virtue of social justice allows for people of good will to reach different—even opposing—practical judgments about the material content of the common good (ends) and how to get there (means). Such differences are the stuff of politics. THE BOOK’S FORMAT

For each chapter we engage one particular topic that generally falls under the umbrella of SEEJ. We will attempt to understand the other’s position and make whatever concessions to each other of which we may be convinced. We will interpret each other’s writing in the most sympathetic manner possible. We will assume good intentions on the part of the other guy. One of us will begin by offering our opinion along with some initial reasons and arguments for it. We will then engage in our dialogue. For balance, we will take turns in starting out the chapters, and ending them. This, at least, is the process we foresee in the writing of this book. But, as anyone who has ever written anything (and this includes shopping lists, too) knows full well, “there is always a slip between cup and lip”: the procedure of putting words on paper is a creative one. Issues arise while this occurs that may (or may not) alter initial intentions. 6

INTRODUCTION

In another book by Four Arrows, Counter-Friction (2011), issues pertaining to social and ecological justice in higher education are addressed in terms of power, politics and grassroots transformations of schools. In this book, we address the controversial subject matter that connects universities to the world at large in a way that allows the reader to understand the polarities that keep us from solving the crises we all face. We hope and trust, gentle reader, that you will enjoy reading our feeble, but best efforts at moving us that proverbial millionth of an inch closer to the Truth, whatever that is. We two authors have taken a chance with each other; we come from widely disparate parts of the political economic spectrum and yet have cooperated in this venture. If we can indeed attain that goal, perhaps it will pave the way for more such cooperation in future. Four Arrows, aka Don Trent Jacobs Walter E. Block

7

CHAPTER 2

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Four Arrows’ Initial Position: I believe academic freedom is vital if state hegemony and its oppression are to ever be challenged so students can emerge from schooling prepared to think critically and participate reasonably in helping to achieve and maintain a relatively healthy world. Walter’s Initial Position: Academic freedom is a useless concept, generally used to rationalize socialistic teaching (indoctrination) endeavors. Walter: Academic freedom is a snare and a delusion. It is evidence of the insolence and gall of some academics. Those who favor it set themselves up for a fall. Why is there only such a thing as “academic freedom,” and no “plumber’s freedom,” or “taxi-cab driver’s freedom,” etc. Are only university professors deserving of “freedom”? Surely not. Forgetting for the moment whether we should favor this concept or not, what, literally, does it mean? Well, if it means anything, and it is unclear as to whether it does or not, it would appear to imply that the academic can do in class exactly what he wishes to do; otherwise, he is hardly “free.” (By analogy, plumber’s freedom would mean that the plumber, not the homeowner, would choose the type of facilities to be installed; tax driver’s freedom would enable the driver, not the customer, to determine the destination of the trip.) Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines the term as the “freedom of a teacher or student to hold and express views without fear of arbitrary interference by officials (n.d.).” But the weasel word, here, is “arbitrary.” No one would think that academic freedom gives a physicist the right to teach Shakespeare, or, a literary scholar justification to hold forth on planetary movements. May either of them, properly, address issues such as the justice of the U.S. role in Viet Nam, Afghanistan or Iraq? It is unclear as to whether this definition can shed any light on the matter. Perhaps, then, the phrase should not be taken so literally. Historically, “academic freedom” issues were highlighted during the McCarthy period, when professors were dismissed for discussing in a positive manner, or promoting, any idea opposed by those in power at the time. For example, consider this episode that occurred at Duke University. Hornell N. Hart, a Professor of Sociology there, published an essay entitled, “McCarthy versus the State Department,” against which Senator Joseph McCarthy took issue. He demanded that Duke squelch this publication. However, the president of that university, Arthur Hollis Edens (n.d.), wrote in response: It is axiomatic in University circles that a Professor has the right to pursue research investigations of his choice. So far as Professor Hart’s work is 9

CHAPTER 2

concerned, it will have to stand on its own merits and be measured by the rigid standards of truth, accuracy, sound scholarship and good taste, to which the works of all scholars are subjected. But, this cannot literally be true. Surely Edens would not have supported sociologist Hart, if the latter insisted on holding forth about chemistry, or economics, or music theory, instead of sticking to his own field of sociology, for the teaching of which, presumably, he was hired. Wherein does justice lie, in all of this? In my view, academic freedom should be seen as a matter of contract. Assume all universities, schools, are private, for simplicity’s sake if no other (For the libertarian, all public institutions of learning are per se unjust, in that they are financed through compulsory levies, e.g., taxes.). Suppose there was a Marxist or fundamentalist Christian college. Presumably, the overwhelming majority of its professoriate would be hired in order to promote that way of looking at the world and analyzing it. That is, the instructors would all be Marxists or fundamentalist Christians. (Possibly, each institution would want a bit of intellectual diversity represented on its faculty, just to keep students on their toes, but that would be strictly up to them, in the free or just society). Posit that the school hired a Marxist, and wanted him to teach Marxist economics. But, after he had been tenured, he converted to free enterprise, and desired to offer that perspective to his students, instead. The doctrine of “academic freedom” would give him the right to do precisely that. However, his contract with the Marxist administration would cut exactly in the opposite direction. Which is more just? Obviously, the contract, here, would trump any so called “academic freedom.” If this academic wishes to profess Austro-libertarianism, and thus support laissez faire capitalism, that is, of course his right. But not on the property of the Marxist University, and not in direct contravention of his contract with their administration. And the same goes, without any doubt, were the professor in question to switch from Austro-libertarianism to Marxism, or from fundamentalist Christianity to atheism, or to anything else other than the religious doctrine for the purpose of which he was hired to introduce his students. To insist that the atheist has a right, the “academic freedom,” to propound this doctrine at Fundamentalist Christian University is as silly as to say that the cab driver has the right to take the customer where he wants to go, and not to the destination of the man who flags down the taxi. The only exception to this general rule that I can see is the case where the university hires a professor to “engage in his academic freedom wherever it leads him.” This may or may not come with the side order condition that the academic, at least, has to stick to his own area of interest and, presumably, expertise. Should institutions of higher learning be in the business of teaching, exploring, studying justice, whether “social” or not? Of course they may, if they so desire. Such a decision in no way contravenes the twin libertarian axioms of non aggression and property rights, based on homesteading and legitimate title transfer (Nozick, 1974; Rothbard, 1973, 1982). Would it best be done only within a few narrowly limited academic departments (e.g., religion, philosophy), or should the topic be researched all throughout the curriculum? This is roughly equivalent, for the libertarian, to asking whether restaurants should feature red, blue or no tablecloths. The answer to 10

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

the latter question is, Allow each eatery to decide this question for itself, and then the market will, presumably, pass judgment on their decisions through the profit and loss system. A similar analysis applies to the teaching industry. Each university should decide that issue for itself, and then sink or swim, at least to some extent, on the basis of it. One argument for ranging widely on issues of (social) justice is that most academic subjects at least impinge upon it to some degree. For example, in music, there arises the question of the justice of copyright; in mathematics and the physical sciences, the propriety of working for imperialistic powers; in engineering and computer science, the legitimacy of patents; in history and English literature, the issue of plagiarism. Similarly, numerous ethical issues arise in economics (is the minimum wage law that disproportionately unemploys young black males to be considered immoral?; in law (should those responsible for the deaths emanating from the prohibition of drugs and markets in used body parts – Barnett, 1988– be dealt with as murderers?), in sociology (is the male – female wage gap due to capitalist exploitation, or to asymmetric gender roles in the home which are voluntarily chosen?). On the other hand, it is the rare mathematician, chemist, musician, astronomer, etc., who has any but the most rudimentary and superficial training, or expertise in these matters. Allowing professors to deal with complex ethical issues runs the risk of allowing the blind to lead the blind. My claim is that it is all but impossible to come to any definitive a priori conclusion on this matter. All the more reason, then, for the marketplace, and the institutions of economic freedom, to sort it out. Four Arrows: Walter essentially puts forward one main argument against the concept of academic freedom and, implied by the context of our book’s subject matter, against the use of academic freedom to promote social and ecological justice in the classroom. He refers to the problem of arbitrariness in both defining and implementing academic freedom. For example, he believes it should be clear that a faculty hired by a religious university should not teach that which opposes the vision of that institution. He declares “no one would think that academic freedom gives a physicist the right to teach Shakespeare, or, a literary scholar justification to hold forth on planetary movements” and that neither should address issues such as the U.S. role in Iraq or Viet Nam. Ultimately, Walter contends that since no employee should have the freedom to do other than what his or her employer intended, it is best for “economic freedom” to ultimately sort out what is taught and how in higher education, implying that there is no rule or law called “academic freedom” that should circumvent the free market. I’m sure Walter will correct me if I am misinterpreting his words, but I think I am close enough to continue with an argument that I think reveals my understanding of his while at the same time offers not so much a rebuttal but a solution that dovetails his view with mine, if this is possible. First, allow me to point out that Webster’s use of “arbitrary” may not be such a “weasel word” as Walter contends. His black and white view that a physicist cannot teach Shakespeare, nor visa versa, etc., does not allow for the legitimate arbitrariness 11

CHAPTER 2

inherent in good, creative research and teaching. For example, Eric Lewin Altschuler (1998) explains, in a piece entitled, “Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars,” how Shakespeare’s frequent references to and knowledge of the physical sciences could shed light on controversies over his authorship of certain plays. I could see both a good teacher of Shakespeare as well as a fine physics instructor employ a related interdisciplinary study to inform and motivate students about either topic. I think, Walter, excellent teacher that he is, will also see this possibility. This, in my view, is the kind of arbitrary dynamics in academic freedom the dictionary referenced. It is the same theory that allows Walter to teach contrary to his own university’s vision and mission statements in support of his own version of social justice. Similarly, academic freedom allows both the physicist and the literature professor to teach their topics while at the same time stimulating critical inquiry regarding the U.S. role in Iraq or Viet Nam. There are many parallels to wars in Shakespeare’s time that could shed light on interpretations of this poet’s words and plots and morals, for example. And if the university vision statement endorsed social justice, I contend it would be a duty of the creative professor to find a way to marry an area of specialization to an exploration about whether or not the invasion of Iraq would have been a “just war” in the eyes of Shakespeare or not. Such possibilities challenge Walter’s declaration that Eden’s claim that a professor has a right to pursue research or teaching as he or she sees fit “cannot literally be true.” On the other hand, I find myself both understanding and agreeing with the essence of Walter’s primary argument. He believes that the employment contract should “trump” the professor’s rights. Keeping focused on our task to illuminate reasonable considerations about the role of higher education in promoting social, economic and ecological justice in the world, I would modify my support of academic freedom with the contingency that it exists if it relates to the vision statement. I believe that a professor within a college or university should not only be allowed to pursue SEEJ as he or she sees fit, but that the instructor, administration, students and staff have a duty to do so, but if and only if two conditions exist: 1. The institution’s vision statement directly asserts or indirectly implies an honouring of the greater public good or the well-being of every person. 2. The ideas presented are or can be relevant to a particular course and allow for, even encourage, alternative and critical perspectives. Both stipulations are supported by the “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” published by the American Association of University Professors in 1940; these remain a part of the AAUP precepts even today. The Statement aligns with the first stipulation as follows: Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. My second stipulation for respecting academic freedom is addressed in the same section: Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment. 12

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

(The entire statement can be viewed online at the AAUP website. http:// www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm) Walter has told us that people should be free to discriminate against others. He objects, apparently, to the notion of academic freedom because it does not allow employers to dismiss faculty for not doing what the employer wants. He (1976, p. 51) has claimed that the colleges and universities allow its faculty: The freedom to teach the subject matter in whatever form the academic wishes to teach it, despite any wishes to the contrary his employer may harbor. Therefore, “academic freedom” prohibits the employer from firing the teacher as long as he teaches the subject matter, no matter how objectionable the teaching is. My two conditions would seem to solve this problem. Unless Walter (1976, 52) resorts to the kinds of examples he jokingly (?) used to represent degrees to which he contends academics violate principles of professionalism, such as a cartoon about a professor who uses academic freedom to defend teaching that John Wayne is the “father of NATO,” I cannot imagine a reasonable counter-argument if academic freedom is contingent on my two stipulations. Using the essence of a vision/mission statement might be a starting place if we can agree on a more reasonable conclusion about the majority of higher education faculty being capable of determining how to meet the vision statement via his or her field. Then it would follow that we could agree that the instructor would have the freedom teach about SEEJ and even advocate it, as long as scholarship includes alternative views and primary source research that engage students in critically understanding. Since this interpretation of higher education vision statements might be considered a possible point of weakness in my argument, allow me to give an example to show how difficult it would be to honestly misinterpret a vision statement enough to claim it does not advocate a mission in behalf of the greater public good or in behalf of all citizens equally. My illustration below uses the vision statement of the University of Georgia. I believe it represents a more conservative wording than exists in many institutions of higher education, yet it is still obvious that social justice is relevant to it. In the following example, I have underlined the phrase that I claim relates to the promotion of SEEJ as we have defined it in our introduction. Vision Statement: The University System of Georgia will create a more educated Georgian, well prepared for a global, technological society, by providing firstrate undergraduate and graduate education, leading-edge research, and committed public service. Since public service is to promote the benefit of the public, not of one segment of it only, I contend that the concept of fair treatment is inherent in the idea. Thus a SEEJ agenda would be appropriate for this university. The Mission Statement further supports this contention. Mission Statement: The mission of the University System of Georgia is to contribute to the educational, cultural, economic, and social advancement of 13

CHAPTER 2

Georgia by providing excellent undergraduate general education and firstrate programs leading to associate, baccalaureate, masters, professional, and doctorate degrees; by pursuing leading-edge basic and applied research, scholarly inquiry, and creative endeavors; and by bringing these intellectual resources, and those of the public libraries, to bear on the economic development of the State and the continuing education of its citizens. Each institution in the University System of Georgia will be characterized by “Cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender diversity in the faculty, staff, and student body, supported by practices and programs that embody the ideals of an open, democratic, and global society. (See http://www.usg.edu/regents/vision_mission_goals/) These words refer to all of Georgia and all of its citizens, thus the “greater good” and “fair treatment” that are inferred. It even goes so far as to mention cultural, ethnic, racial and gender diversity in the university and it would be wrongheaded to believe such goals would not be applicable to the larger society. Finally, it supports the “ideals” of a democratic society. Admittedly, this concept is surrounded by controversy and interpretation, but we can get a good sense of U of G’s meaning for it via its vision and mission statements. Few college or university vision statements are obviously neutral about making the world a better place for all. The University of California’s mission statement, which seems to do its best to remain neutral, still refers to the goal of working toward “improvements in the quality of life (n.d.)” and no serious investigator would be able to prove that the intention did not apply to all people equally. I hope to learn through Walter’s response how his position and mine might have common ground. Academic freedom is an important concept according to most universities, most faculty and students, and most Supreme Court rulings. When it is ignored, at best, faculty risk losing tenure or failing to gain promotion. At worst are the many historical and contemporary international examples of imprisonment and death to those professors whose work challenges state or corporate hegemony. I hope we can all make room for subjectivity in higher education that is based on reason, reflection on experience, dialogue and primary source research. This means moving beyond the illusion of “the myth of objectivity” that is often used to curtail academic freedom and maintain the status quo. David Horowitz’s book, Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom, is but one of many examples of using the cover of the myth of objectivity to prevent this kind of examination of the status quo: For academic radicals who hope to “change the world,” teaching is not a disinterested intellectual inquiry but a form of political combat. The banner of this combat is “social justice,” the emblem that signifies to the post-Communist left the triumph of the oppressed over the oppressors (Horowitz, 2007, p. xxvi). Bias exists and facts never speak for themselves. Our preconceptions, assumptions, values and politics are part of the lens through which we see the world (Clouser, 1991). The goals of academic freedom are to help assure that these things are exposed, realized, discussed, and, eventually, based on scholarship. If truth is, as Parker Palmer’s quote in the Introduction states - “an eternal conversation about 14

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

things that matter, conducted with passion and discipline,” then the lack of authenticity behind “disinterested intellectual inquiry” will not likely allow anyone to come close to it. Walter ended his opening statement with his claim that “it is all but impossible to come to any definitive a priori conclusion on this matter.” I assert that this supports Webster’s reference to arbitrariness and the need to have institutions of learning where creative inquiry exists for the sake of new knowledge. I end with a quote from the original 1915 statement of the AAUP that has withstood the test of time. In a world where violence against nature and others is widespread and new creative solutions are largely absent, I think it is worth another read. Higher education should be an intellectual experiment station, where new ideas may germinate and where their fruit, though still distasteful to the community as a whole, may be allowed to ripen until finally, perchance, it may become a part of the accepted intellectual food of the nation or of the world (AAUP, 1915, 1940). Walter: A minor clarification: Four Arrows attributes to me the view that “no employee should have the freedom to do other than what his or her employer intended.” The way I see matters, it is not that the employer dictates to the employee, or, even the other way around; rather, a contract between them embodies the view of both of them. The bargaining process between the two of them should determine what the professor teaches. As for Four Arrows’ point about “Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars,” yes, there is such a thing as interdisciplinarity. I have no doubt that, to take an example from my own discipline, an economist specializing in the sub field of law and economics could indeed teach a course in law; and, also, a law professor with some background in the dismal science could do a pretty good job at this course as well. But, it seems to stretch matters quite a bit to suppose that a man with a Ph.D. in literature, and perhaps no physics courses at all, could be a good instructor in that science, and the opposite holds as well. I go further: if there were a private university that mixed and matched in this manner, and did such things all throughout its curriculum, I predict it would soon go broke, and good riddance to it, too. I cannot see my way clear to agreeing with Four Arrows’ claim that “both the physicist and the literature professor (could) teach their topics while at the same time stimulating critical inquiry into the U.S. role in Iraq or Viet Nam.” It seems to me that this claim fails to take into account the complexity of foreign policy, and the importance of specialization and the division of labor in all matters, certainly including the intellectual. In order to be a good physicist, one must carefully study this discipline. That leaves precious time to acquaint oneself with the niceties of war in the middle or Far East. It is not for nothing that LeBron James is a lousy cellist, and Michael Phelps cannot play the clarinet at all. The former spends most of his professional time pursuing basketball, and the latter is a denizen of the swimming pool. How could these athletes possibly be highly skilled in these musical pursuits, too? Why should academics be any different? Of course, this is not to say that some, few, academics, may be expert in fields for which they have no credentials. 15

CHAPTER 2

They might well have carefully studied these other disciplines. I am, after all, merely making a generalization, which certainly admits of exceptions. However, I join with Four Arrows, and enthusiastically so, when he underscores the importance of contract. But, I fear, he takes most or all of this back when he says: Simply put, I believe that a professor within a college or university should not only be allowed to pursue SEEJ as he or she sees fit, but that the instructor, administration, students and staff have a duty to do so, but if and only if two conditions exist: The institution’s vision statement directly asserts or indirectly implies an honouring of the greater public good or the well-being of every person. The ideas presented are or can be relevant to a particular venue and allow for, even encourage, alternative and critical perspectives. First, this should be up to the contract, should it not? Yes, if this agreement requires all professors to promote social justice, then, indubitably, they should do so. But, surely, the market place would reject an institution that weighs down mathematics professors with the obligation to focus on SEEJ. Second, it seems likely that the math instructor can better promote human well-being by sticking to his expertise, than by waxing on about areas far removed from his specialty. Further, I do not agree that there is or can be anything such as the “public good.” In my view, there are only private goods. Four Arrows goes on to support the “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” published by the American Association of University Professors in 1940: Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. My question is, How can this be made to square with the idea of contract? University X may have signed a contract with Professor Y to the effect that he may, and indeed is encouraged to lecture about matters that have “no relation to his subject.” The marketplace may well reject an institution of higher learning with such a policy, but that is entirely a separate matter. Surely, X and Y have a right to sign such a contract. As well, I see as problematic the other clause, regarding freedom of professors to discuss their subjects. In the regard, an interesting issue has arisen in Canadian higher education. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has criticized Trinity Western University in British Columbia, for requiring all faculty to sign a statement of Christian faith as a pre-condition of employment. Here, “Teachers are not entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject,” contrary to the “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” of the AAUP. According to the executive director of CAUT, his organization’s condemnation of any school which enforces a religious loyalty oath “is not about faculty having to sign a statement of faith before being hired. A university is meant as a place to explore ideas, not to create disciples of Christ (Gilbert, 2010).” Sez him. Who is he 16

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

and his organization to impose his views on two contracting parties, Trinity Western University (TWU), and the scholars who sign on to its policies? That agreement is a capitalist act between consenting adults, and ought not to be abrogated by CAUT, an outside party (Of course, to the extent that CAUT sees itself as a private certification body, it should be free to condemn any policy not to its liking, and to inform others of its determinations). Nor is this type of threat without barbs. Until the Supreme Court of Canada intervened on TWU’s behalf, the B.C. College of Teachers – a sister organization to CAUT at least in terms of philosophy – removed TWU’s accreditation; it’s graduates were not allowed to teach in provincial high schools due to the supposed “anti-homosexual agenda” of its curriculum; that is, its Christian philosophy. While an avowedly Christian University such as TWU will of course “encourage alternative and critical perspectives” on some issues, it will most certainly not do so on others. Is that its right? Of course it is, the AAUP’s “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” to the contrary notwithstanding. Thus, Four Arrows and I cannot at all “agree that the instructor would have the freedom teach about SEEJ and even advocate it, as long as scholarship includes alternative views and primary source research that engage students in critically understanding.” This would be in direct contravention of the contract TWU has made with its faculty, and it is entirely just that this Christian institution of higher learning have precisely that right. I must also take issue with Four Arrows’ statement to the effect that teaching be in “behalf of all citizens equally,” and support “public service … to promote the benefit of the public, not of one segment of it only.” The mission of TWU, and other religiously oriented colleges, is to promote the welfare of a narrow segment of the overall population. Is it not just that it be allowed to do so? Why should this firm be forced to serve everyone, let alone “equally”? In the free society, no restaurant, steel mill or grocery is concerned with the entire population; only with their own customers. Four Arrows weighs in on behalf of “cultural, ethnic, racial and gender diversity” and democracy. I have great difficulty with all of these concepts, at least when they are forced down the throats of those who are unwilling to embrace them. There are institutions of higher learning that reject all of them. On what ground are we to say them nay? Suppose I were to start up Blockhead University, and limit its faculty and student body to people of only one homogeneous “cultural, ethnic, racial and gender” category. I do so with my own honestly earned money. I reject the notion that to do so would be unjust. And, as for democracy, I accept this institution if there is unanimous agreement to vote in the first place, as in the case of a voluntary club, or condominium association. But this does not at all apply to any polity that people didn’t agree to join in the first place, and must thus be rejected as unjust. There is, after all, such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. Further, Hitler came to power through democratic means; so much for democracy. (For a thorough going critique of this institution, see Hoppe, 2001.) As for “faculty being subtly threatened with not getting tenure or promotions,” the overwhelming majority of such cases concern conservative and libertarian 17

CHAPTER 2

professors being booted out of the academy for not toeing the “social justice” line on such things as socialism, cultural, ethnic, racial and gender diversity, and democracy. The Horowitz book, I think, is highly accurate in its assessment of this situation. Four Arrows ends his section of this chapter with the following quote: It should be an intellectual experiment station, where new ideas may germinate and where their fruit, though still distasteful to the community as a whole, may be allowed to ripen until finally, perchance, it may become a part of the accepted intellectual food of the nation or of the world (AAUP, 1915, 1940). My own reaction to this statement is that I would like to attend a university, whether as student or faculty member, that embodied this goal. But I know of no cases where this ideal is actually respected. However, I think it a matter of elemental justice that universities, such as the religiously oriented, that explicitly reject this viewpoint, also be allowed to operate. Four Arrows: I concede that I may have overemphasized the interdisciplinary opportunity to teach SEEJ in courses not generally associated with it. I was only trying to demonstrate to Walter that it could be done and should be attempted if so doing does not detract from the main course objectives and if the school’s vision statement so warrants. Of course it would be inappropriate if a music teacher spent more time teaching about social justice than about notes, clefs and rhythm, given that the music oriented goals for the class would then be compromised. I also agree with Walter that the professor of music would likely have minimal expertise in social or ecological justice issues. However, not subscribing to the expert, top-down “sage on the stage” model of teaching, and preferring the “guide on the side” collaboration model, I do not worry too much about a lack of expertise in SEEJ. Research of primary source documents and good teaching can enhance a student’s learning about SEEJ if a master teacher, in any field, properly connects SEEJ to his or her course. There is a great difference between being a good physicist and a good teacher of physics. In any case, I did not mean to imply that any blending of one’s field of instruction with SEEJ awareness should be the mainstay of a course that is not normally an alignment with such issues and I concede this point to Walter. Walter also takes issue with my statement to the effect that teaching be in “behalf of all citizens equally,” and support “public service … to promote the benefit of the public, not of one segment of it only.” He asks the question, “If the mission of TWU, and other religiously oriented colleges, is to promote the welfare of a narrow segment of the overall population, is it not just that it be allowed to do so? However, he seems to have missed my entire point, that if the institution’s vision statement supports a religious mission, then it is entirely acceptable for professors to act in accord with it. On the other hand, if the vision statement of the university upholds an SEEJ agenda, then this too would be justified. Walter’s position thus implies that he agrees with my claim that vision or mission statements ought to be the determining factor in whether or not a university target SEEJ goals. So my answer to his question is, Yes. It is just that a university be allowed, even encouraged to follow its vision or mission statement. It follows that if such a statement promotes the 18

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

general welfare of the citizenry or specifically refers to social or ecological well being or justice, then so be it. So it seems, at this point, that Walter and I are in agreement on this vital point! Before I move to my most important concern with Walter’s position, I wish to challenge his claim that the “overwhelming majority of such cases concerns conservative and libertarian professors being booted out of the academy for not toeing the social justice lines.” I just spent about 20 minutes on both the Wilson database and Google searching cases in which teachers were fired for their political views. I grant that most of these incidents related to K-12 education but I also submit that the same forces exist in higher education. I found only two conservative teachers who were dismissed. Both of these cases related to Christian fundamentalist teachers. There were fourteen situations in which a teacher had been fired for promoting anti-establishment perspectives, such as teaching students to think critically about war, family planning, homophobia, Christian fundamentalism and even one for showing movies with a liberal slant. I would think this finding would be supported by any serious student of educational history. Censorship of and sanctions against those teachers who have challenged a state’s agenda or the dominant group’s ideology have always been at risk, not just in the U.S., but throughout the world. I must respectfully ask Walter to offer evidence for his claim or that of Horowitz, even if it is necessary for us both to create an annotated bibliography of citations to support our opposing notions. Most professors or teachers in public schools are threatened when they attempt education that challenges state hegemony worldwide. The loss of academic freedom continues to result in many people being imprisoned for teaching students to think critically in ways that can challenge those in power. I beseech Walter to acknowledge such “liberal” teaching is far more likely to lead to problems than teaching “conservative” or status quo perspectives alone! Or, at least, help me better understand his claims and thinking in this regard for clarification to me and our readers. Although I feel more emotion about the aforementioned topic, the more important question has to do with my position that a vision statement is a contract of sorts that provides the basis for a faculty teaching goals. As I said, I agree with Walter that “Blockhead University,” has a right as a private institution to have its own agenda, but it is the vision statement that is more likely to advertise the owner’s purpose than individual employment contracts. I said a teacher would have a responsibility to address SEEJ if it was relevant to the course of study and if “the institution’s vision statement directly asserts or indirectly implies an honouring of the greater public good or the well-being of every person.” Moving on to Walter’s question, “this should be up to the contract, should it not?” I have to ask him why he seems to be ignoring my contingency relating to the vision and mission statements? I can only assume that, in spite of his own example relating to the religious school being able to adhere to its principles based on a mission statement, he feels the employment contract is a necessary requirement. Perhaps he sees no connection between the vision and mission and the school’s employment contract? I looked at a number of faculty employment contracts online. Most made no mention of the vision statement per se; however many required that the institution’s rules and 19

CHAPTER 2

regulations be followed. I did find one that specifically required a commitment to the university’s “vision statement and core values.” Nonetheless, since most employment contracts are not that detailed about anything relating to curriculum, it would seem that following the university vision statement would, at least in spirit, come close enough to Walter’s regard for employment contract to warrant some concession to my stipulations. If Walter’s only reluctance to take cognizance of the implied contractual relevance of the vision and mission statement to a faculty’s employment contract relates to his belief that there cannot be anything such as the public good and that “there are only private goods,” then in our next chapter about a university’s SEEJ obligations relating to the environment I will ask him if he believes the commons, e.g., fresh air, clean water, unpolluted rivers and oceans, public parks, etc., should be considered merely “private goods.” To dismiss my idea that academic freedom to teach should be dependent on the goals of a university or college vision statement’s reference to the “public good” because he believes there should only be private goods, is a topic of vital concern. However, since most public goods or commons relate to our natural resources, I can delay this conversation until our next chapter. I close with a reiteration of my important questions for Walter’s clarification or perhaps a modification of a position or phrasing: 1. Does he truly believe that more conservative oriented educators are fired, censored, imprisoned, killed or otherwise intimidate than liberal ones, now and throughout history and if so, can he support his position? (Truly, I must say I dislike the labels, “right and left” and “conservative and liberal” and hope we can do our best to avoid using them in the future.) 2. How far away is Walter’s reliance on a faculty’s employment contract from my stipulation relating to the institution’s vision and mission statements, regardless of whether the actual signed contract refers to them? 3. And, for the next chapter, can he explain why the commons cannot exist or be for the benefit of the public good? Walter: Four Arrows says it would be inappropriate for a music professor to spend more time teaching about social justice than music. In my view, this need not necessarily be “inappropriate.” It all depends upon the contract between university and professor. If the school really believes in academic freedom, and interprets this in the manner I have been doing, then the music teach may indeed properly address the issues of justice, or physics, or whatever. I only cast doubt on the economic viability of a college that allows this sort of thing. I have never heard it expressed in quite this manner before, but, I certainly am an advocate of the “sage on the stage” model of teaching rather than the “guide on the side” collaboration scenario. If I want to learn how to speak Spanish, or to do a heart transplant, or engage in chemical experiments, I would vastly prefer to be taught by someone who knows full well what they are doing, who can get up on the “stage” and pontificate, who will not merely “collaborate” with me, a mere ignoramus on these (and many other) subjects. Thus, I do worry quite a bit about 20

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

a lack of expertise in justice issues on the part of the expert in physics, or music. But, I certainly agree with Four Arrows, and enthusiastically so, that there is a “great difference between being a ‘good physicist’ and a good teacher of physics.” My co author takes me to task for saying that the “overwhelming majority of such cases concerns conservative and libertarian professors being booted out of the academy for not toeing the social justice lines.” Much to my dismay, I fear he is in the right, and I, in the wrong. I thus stand corrected by him on this matter. I have no evidence to buttress this claim of mine. What I should have said, instead, is that the reason it is so difficult to find evidence of conservative and libertarian professors being booted out of the academy is because there are so few of them there in the first place. In other words, it is not the case that those who do not toe the left-liberal line on social justice are first allowed into the professoriate, and then dismissed from it. Rather, they are not even offered entry, at the outset. The evidence for this is very clear, and, indeed, overwhelming, whether measured in terms of viewpoints of the faculty, or their financial contributions, or invitees to graduation ceremonies (Spartacus, 2004, 2005; Kennedy, 2005; Miron, 2006, Conservapedia, 2010, Karni, 2007; Horowitz, 2003). For example, according the left liberal-biased New York Times: “The ratio of Democratic to Republican professors ranged from 3 to 1 among economists to 30 to 1 among anthropologists.” Support for the Democratic Party is a reasonably good proxy for adherence to left liberal viewpoints, as is association with the Republican Party evidence of a right wing or conservative philosophy. This leaves out libertarians, who are usually (Ron Paul is an exception) linked with neither party. A similar disparity exists in departments of sociology, philosophy, history, religion, political science, and an even greater bias exists in feminist studies, black studies, queer studies, multicultural studies. And, according to Klein, “Screened out, expelled or self-sorted, they tend to land outside of academia because the crucial decisions — awarding tenure and promotions, choosing which papers get published — are made by colleagues hostile to their political views (Blog from the Core, 2004).” In the view of Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter (2005) this phenomenon is by no means limited to social scientist and liberal arts professors; it has infected the hard sciences as well: “three out of four biologists and computer scientists now place themselves to the left of center, as do about two thirds of mathematicians, chemists, and physicists.” According to the findings of these authors, the rot afflicts physicists by a ten to one ratio of Democrats to Republicans. I really do not see how it can be denied that the university campus (my knowledge of the K-12 situation in this regard is inadequate; I bow to Four Arrows’ superior information in this realm) is almost an entirely owned branch plant of the left. What happened to Larry Summers, former president of Harvard, is very instructive, and is but the tip of the iceberg. For merely speculating about the possibility of male-female discrepancies in mathematics and physics accomplishments stemming even partially from the biological make up of human beings, he was drummed off campus. A lesser well known bit of evidence for this contention emanates from yet another highly prestigious university. According to Simon: Early last year Yale University returned a $20 million gift from alumnus Lee Bass rather than honor his request that the money be used for a course of studies 21

CHAPTER 2

in Western civilization. The incident spoke volumes about the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that has swept the U.S. academic community. Yale is so strapped for cash it has had to defer $1 billion in maintenance and has closed two departments. Yet, the school apparently would rather turn its back on $20 million than offend the forces of ‘political correctness” and offer a course in the civilization that gave it birth (1996, p. 21; see also Bass, 1995). There are, of course, cases that appear to be on the other side of the ledger. For instance, feminist and lesbian theologian Mary Daly was seemingly fired from Boston College for her socialist views (Autostraddle, 2010). But, not so, not so. Professor Daly was, rather, dismissed because she would not allow any male students to enroll in her classes, contrary to explicit college rules. She could have continued to wax eloquent about her “Gyn/Ecology” perspective had she not insisted upon this exclusion. I do have some anecdotal evidence to support the claim that upon occasion, critics of the left wing version of social justice are first given jobs, and then, unfairly, denied tenure: my own case. I taught at Holy Cross College from 1991–1997; my publications during that time were greater than any other member of my eleven person department, and, appeared in many of the same journals. Indeed, the number of my publications was almost equal to all of them put together. My teaching evaluations were severely criticized by members of the tenure and promotion committee that dismissed me; but they refused to compare them with those of other members of my department, nor with all others from the entire college who received tenure in that year. If that is not a case of a “libertarian professor being booted out of the academy for not toeing the social justice lines” then nothing is. A much more famous case concerned Michael Levin. He published a book on a subject other than what he taught at his university (philosophy), never mentioned this topic in class, and yet suffered a threat to his tenure, which he successfully fought in court at great personal cost (Hays, 1991). As to “vision statements,” I do not take them seriously for any purpose; I certainly do not think they serve as, even, implicit contracts. Virtually all of them are blatant lies. Were they to accurately reflect what actually goes on in most prestigious universities, as opposed to expressing their pious and irrelevant hopes regarding knowledge, justice, understanding, etc., they would say something like this: “We are going to charge you some $50,000 per year for four years of tuition and room and board, and, in return, we are going to indoctrinate your children with feminism, Marxism, anti white racism, the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism, social justice, Keynesianism, obscurantism and other varieties of political correctness. Period.” Four Arrows closes with three questions. My answer to the first is that I misspoke. I was in error when I claimed that “conservative oriented educators are fired and censored.” There are too few of them on campus for that. Rather, they are not for the most part hired in the first place. (I never claimed they were imprisoned, killed; certainly not in this country.) They are not so much censored as self-censored. My response to the second is that a vision statement is not a contract. No one was ever fired for its violation. However, I concede to Four Arrows, it has some quasi contract aspects: the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has 22

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

successfully sued numerous institutions of higher learning for their trashing of the free speech rights of conservative and libertarian students and professors on campus. As to the third, regarding the public good, the commons, and fresh air, clean water, unpolluted rivers and oceans, public parks, etc., I entirely agree with Four Arrows that we should defer their discussion until we reach our chapters on environmentalism. Four Arrows: I appreciate that Walter has retracted his claim that more right wing faculty are fired or otherwise terminated worldwide than those with a more liberal persuasion; however his fall back position cannot go unchallenged. If we cannot, in good faith, offer counter-evidence to one another, how else shall we use reason in our mutual search for truth and understanding in the other’s position? In this instance, Walter’s claim that there is a left wing bias in universities may or may not be true because the sources he used to establish it are not sufficiently scholarly. My co-author’s assertion is based on opinion pieces, blogs, publications of conservative think tanks, or are written by professors whose relevant studies were sponsored by a conservative organization. Referring to the latter, Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter and Neil Nevitte’s original study, the one referenced by Walter about the “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty,” was sponsored by the Randolph Foundation, a private philanthropy that funds conservative organizations such as Americans for Tax Reform, the Independent Women’s Forum, and right-wing pundit David Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture. If this is not bad enough, the conclusions to which Rothman et al. refers concerning a shift from right to left and a bias against the right among professors emanated from a study that asked questions in two entirely different ways in the two comparative studies, one requesting respondents to place themselves on a ten-point scale, and one asking them to select from a list of descriptions. This does not mean such a shift did not happen, only that there is no way to know if it did based on the data they offer. Furthermore, the original 1984 study involved three times the number of observations of the later study and involved two-year community colleges, whereas the latter included only research institutions. It is well known that people with more education are more likely to be left leaning, so showing that four year colleges have more left leaning folks that two year institutions should occasion no surprise; such a “study” demonstrates no bias at all. Nor do these authors provide any actual evidence to show that conservative Ph.D.s were denied positions or tenure more than liberal ones. (For more details on this, see the full rejoinder, see: http://mediamatters.org/research/ 200504050002.) This topic is only important insofar as many of the challenges to academic freedom from the right are based on the belief that professors are using it to indoctrinate students into left-wing ideologies. Walter feels the way he does because of his own personal experience. His story about the challenges to his tenure he experienced in spite of his publications, however, is paralleled by a similar story I could share about obstacles I faced at Northern Arizona University. I questioned the conclusions surrounding 9/11 and challenged the reasons for going into Iraq, and almost lost my tenure appointment over these episodes. I feel the logical conclusion cannot be 23

CHAPTER 2

as much about our opposing political views as our willingness to express them or our tendencies to go outside the acceptable limits of the perceived status quo. This might be informative for our chapter on academic freedom, but hardly supports a dismissal of it. I am much more interested in Walter’s blatant dismissal of vision statements. He says, “As to ‘vision statements,’ I do not take them seriously for any purpose; I certainly do not think they serve as, even, implicit contracts.” How does this square with his earlier statement that if a private school’s mission statement supported the right to talk about a topic, it should be able to do so? Such contradictions are typical in any fundamentalist ideology it seems to me, whether religion or libertarianism. Now, I could agree with my colleague that most universities and colleges tend to not follow them and that therefore, as Walter contends, they wind up being “lies.” But this alone does not warrant dismissing the stated goals of every university or college nor the hard work of many intelligent and well-intentioned people who created them. What I do not understand about Walter’s position here relates to our agreement that social and ecological justice is about preventing violence against others in the world. Since most of the vision statements relate to education as an opportunity to improve the well-being of citizens, developing dispositions and knowledge with which to gain it (which has to include stopping violence), I must know what Walter believes is the purpose of a university or, at least, why he feels one does not have the right to aspire toward its convictions?! An inability to accomplish a goal should not be an indictment against the goal itself or against those who are sincerely working toward it. And what is the alternative? Is the only true purpose in the universities and colleges with social justice oriented visions to grant credentials for those who can, without a conscious awareness of the violence against homosexuals, women, social justice and the other things Walter dismissed, go forth and blindly serve those that are responsible for the violence?! Walter: I regard Four Arrows as my mentor in this project. ‘Twas he who approached me about working with him on this, not the other way around. I am (happily) riding on his coat tails in this regard. I am not fully satisfied with this chapter as it now stands because, I believe we (me, mainly) have not fully adhered to one of the principles Four Arrows emphasized to me at the outset of our collaboration. He said there are plenty of debate format books out there, where scholars of differing opinions “have at it” with each other. We recognized, early on, that given the disparity of our views, we could not entirely ignore that element in this book. Nor was this all to the bad. An honest debate, where each person took seriously the views of the other, is rarely attained. All too often, debates consist of opponents shouting at each other, trying to score cheap points against one another, and as far as promoting understanding is concerned, they pass each other as “ships in the night.” However, in Four Arrows’ view, and I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstand him on this point, our book should attempt to be something more than that: we would also strive mightily to reconcile our positions with those of the other guy. 24

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

So, let me try to do just that, more explicitly. I now more clearly see his point about which type of professors suffer what types of outrage. He is taking more of a global view of this issue, whereas, in my own mind’s eye, I was thinking virtually only of the U.S. (and to a lesser extent, Canada). Walking in his moccasins, I agree with him: at times, in at least some nations, leftist professors have indeed suffered more indignities in many (non Communist-socialist) countries than those who advocate “free market corporatism.” (I regard this phrase as a veritable contradiction in terms, such as square circle, or tall short man. But, I will reserve my explanation for a future chapter when we deal with economic issues. Hey, we have got to keep the customers interested.) For example, during the time of Pinochet in Chile, a professor espousing views not all that distant from mine (e.g., those of the “Chicago boys”) would have been given at least a lukewarm welcome; regarding those promoting the vision of Allende, loss of tenure or promotion would have been the least of their worries. Four Arrows: Perhaps it was Keynes who stated, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”. I now ask my esteemed co-author this question. In gracefully admitting that more liberal professors are taken to task in education worldwide, including imprisonment, etc., than those who support the status quo free market corporatism that pervades the world, what mind change occurs? Homophobia and violence against gays and lesbians continues unabated; women remain oppressed; gaps between executive pay and employee pay continue to rise; ecological violence in spite of scientific warnings seems unstoppable. After agreeing that folks in education who are trying to address these issues are more likely to be removed one way or the other than those in support of them, what mind change is happening? I must respectfully ask this of my colleague who has caused me to change my mind about the right of a private college to allow its vision statement or employment contract to override academic freedom. I appreciate Walter’s reminder to us both about our goals in this book regarding not merely hammering our views at each other and shouting each other down, so to speak. We are, I am sure, working hard at trying to understand the truth in one another’s views, and we need to do our best not adopt the tactics that both left and right wing “arguers” all too often employ. In any case, I think academic freedom should apply to everyone, whatever their political views and to whatever degree one university or another is stacked with either left or right wing folks. (I also detest these polarized positions and hope we eventually shake them off, except to the degree that an eagle needs both wings to fly.). Nonetheless, if we are going to support our ideas in ways that the other might be able to understand them, we must buttress them with data that holds up to scrutiny and we are obligated to challenge one another, albeit respectfully. With this in mind, I want to bring a sharper focus to our various views, as I now understand them, relating to academic freedom and its role in helping us answer the question about whether or not higher education should address SEEJ issues. Walter will then comment on, clarify or add to my interpretations before we move on to our related discussion about the environment, commons, public good and private ownership in the next chapter. 25

CHAPTER 2

First, because I appreciate Walter’s sense about the college or university, private or public, being somewhat like a business, I offered the vision/mission statements as a basis for whether or not the school should/could address SEEJ in its curriculum. Walter’s responses, which I am desperately trying to understand, remain paradoxical to me. First, he dismisses vision statements as entirely useless in the same way as he rejects the concept of academic freedom, saying that the employment contract alone should determine whether or not a faculty has the freedom to teach a particular topic. However, he also relied on the mission statement of a private, religious university to support his claim that it should not be forced to teach SEEJ ideas that are contrary to its religious mission. Which is it Walter? Second, Walter, although he feels the concept of academic freedom is a “snare and a delusion,” seems concerned about the possibility (whether or not it is true) that left-wing ideologies are doing a disservice to higher education. At the same time he granted that worldwide, such ideologies are punished by those in control of universities, ending his last comment with a reference about how difficult it would have been to criticize Pinochet during his time in Chile. So I ask my esteemed colleague to help me understand what seems to be a second paradox: Does he believe that a professor during the time when Nixon and Kissinger were undermining a democratically elected government to support a brutal dictator could not/should not have explored the SEEJ consequences of this in a relevant course in higher education? In his response, perhaps he might share the fact that he was recently invited to a law school to discuss a topic related to differentials between male and female wages, an obvious social justice/equity issue, if ever there was one. If the school were somehow not allowed to engage this topic, or Walter not allowed to speak on it, would this not be a legitimate reason to invoke the concept of academic freedom? Are only law students to be afforded the right to consider important issues of social, economic, or ecological justice (SEEJ)? Finally, Walter says the vision statement is not to be taken seriously for any purpose; that they are all lies. How then would he explain why he feels they are in alignment with the “indoctrination” agendas that he thinks defines most universities? Surely, if faculty are doing that which the vision statement envisions for the sake of non-violence against women, gays, minorities, etc., then the vision statement cannot be entirely a lie. Also, since my co-author would likely believe that a private company should not present false advertising about its product (I am hoping that free enterprise does not encourage or tolerate such a practice), then why should not a university have the same right and responsibility to advertise what it is selling to its customers? And, apparently, if Walter feels both the vision statement and the university practices are left leaning, then they are obviously not false advertising, and everyone should have the academic freedom to support the public good. So is Walter’s argument that vision statements are lies or is it that because they are not lies what bothers him? So, if my illustrious collaborator could offer some comments that would help me understand his actual position (or at least tell me how he deals with the cognitive dissonance surrounding the apparent paradoxes), then we can move on to our next chapter where we examine whether or not there are things in the world that are best 26

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

for the good of all when not privately owned, especially those environmental assets such as air, fresh water and oceans. Walter: I think that my distinguished colleague is beating a dead horse. After all, I did say, above, “…. I concede to Four Arrows, it (the vision statement) has some quasi contract aspects: the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has successfully sued numerous institutions of higher learning for their trashing of the free speech rights of conservative students and professors on campus.” But, evidently, my co author is not satisfied with this concession of mine. So, let me further elaborate on it. FIRE has succeeded in forcing left wing administrations to back down in their trashing of the free speech rights of conservative and libertarian students and professors, in part, because of the failure of these universities to live up to claims appearing in their own vision statements guaranteeing precisely this sort of freedom of expression. For example, when students attempt to hold affirmative action bake sales, or show the bloody results of abortions, or try to engage in their second amendment rights to bear arms, or publicly post the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed, or otherwise take advantage of free speech rights typically accorded to left wing students and faculty, the dean of the university typically forbids this, or confines it to small and specially designated “free speech zones” on the edge of campus (by the way, this furnishes further evidence that the university is a bastion of left wing sentiment). In cases of this sort, whether by letters to college presidents threatening lawsuits, or by initiating them, FIRE has been able to protect pro market students in the enjoyment of rights accorded to them by these mission statements. So, yes, I have been completely convinced by Four Arrows’ eloquent statements in behalf of vision statements. I retract my too critical remarks on them. I now see that they do indeed partake of contract like characteristics. Mea culpa. Uncle. I give up on this one. I certainly support Four Arrows’ eloquent call for reason in our “our mutual search for truth and understanding.” And, to be sure, an offer of “counter-evidence” is part and parcel of this process. I regard his rejection of Rothman, Nevitte, and Lichter (2005) on the ground that these authors were supported by right wing groups, and that their publication did not appear in “sufficiently scholarly” venues, as verging on the ad hominem fallacy. Stipulate that it is the case that money from these sources sustained this publication, it does not demonstrate by one whit that their research was flawed. I would have thought that it was a “settled” issue that faculties of major universities in the humanities and social sciences were wildly biased against the market place, and that even the professoriate of subject matters removed from public policy analysis (music, art, the hard sciences) was significantly predisposed in this direction. As for Four Arrows’ specific criticisms of Rothman, Nevitte, and Lichter (2005), I am very much less interested in the marginal changes that have taken place in the statistical evidence undergirding this conclusion, than I am in the fact that there is tremendous bias against economic freedom in both time periods. In the view of my esteemed co-author, “academic freedom should apply to everyone.” We are pretty far apart on this matter, in that it is my view that the 27

CHAPTER 2

default position ought to be that academic freedom should apply to no one. (However, this may be overridden if both parties, academic employer and employee, agree to override it.) Are all vision statements lies, every last word of them? Mary McCarthy famously said of Communist Lillian Hellman: “every word (she) writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’” No extremist I, I do not go that far in condemning most university mission statements. Sometimes, rarely, they show their true anti free enterprise venom, and on those occasions they are indeed, as Four Arrows insightfully insists, compatible with what actually goes on in the classroom, for the most part. As for changing our minds, a la Keynes, it would not bother me in the least if Four Arrows, after we have finished writing this book, converted to the libertarian freedom philosophy. Indeed, that is one of my motivations for engaging in this cooperative endeavour. It would be magnificent to have such an accomplished and eloquent scholar consistently take the side of liberty. But, I hope this change of heart and mind does not occur before we are finished, lest, we never complete the writing of this book. I hate to start projects and not bring them to a conclusion. I agree with Four Arrows that there is a problem with saying both that, one, politically correct vision statements are a complete lie, and, two, that universities push political correctness on campus in accord with them. This is indeed cognitive dissonance; my colleague is too polite to call it what it is: a downright logical contradiction. However, I maintain the truth of only the second of these claims, not the first. I doubt that there are any such mission announcements that are as brutally honest as the one I previously mentioned. Can he supply any such? As I stated above, the typical mission statement is not a lie in every word in every word of it (re McCarthy - Hellman). No, there are often mealy-mouthed sentiments expressed about equality, brotherhood, peace, good relations, social justice, etc., some of which are actually true; but they never quite get around to telling the whole truth, that the mainly left wing professoriate is intent upon inculcating our youth with the verities of “feminism, Marxism, anti white racism, the homosexual agenda, multiculturalism, social justice, Keynesianism, obscurantism and other varieties of political correctness.” Four Arrows wishes to call into question the research conducted by Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter (2005), buttressing the finding that the university is mainly the domain of leftists. He does so by recourse to N.C., S.S.M., & P.W. (2005). But there are problems here. First, this rejoinder appeared in Media Matters for America, self described as “a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” In other words, it is not a scholarly organization with a peer reviewed double blind refereed journal; rather it is biased toward the left, in much the same as the Randolph Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, the Independent Women’s Forum, and Center for the Study of Popular Culture are biased toward the right, and deprecated by Four Arrows on that ground. One wonders at this double standard. Further, at least Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter give us their full names, we thus know who we are dealing with when we read their works; the same cannot be said for “N.C., S.S.M., & P.W.” who vouchsafe us no such information. However, I regard these points merely as an exercise in ad 28

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

hominem argumentation, unworthy of serious consideration. What matters is not who finances whom, or whether an essay appears in a blog, in a magazine, in a book, or in a scholarly journal. Nor does it matter one whit whether something is published on an anonymous basis. The only thing that, properly, counts, is the truth value of the claim. And here, it appears so far from the mark to deny that higher education in the U.S. is a virtually entirely owned subsidiary of the left, that all I can think of to do is to congratulate Four Arrows, and N.C., S.S.M., & P.W., for having the courage to defend so quixotic a position. Second, my co author waxes eloquent about N.C., S.S.M., & P.W. (2005). He neglects to mention that a rejoinder has been written to this critique (Rothman and Lichter, 2009). It would take me too far afield to discourse on the debate between these two sets of authors. Suffice it to say that in citing these two works (Rothman, Nevitte and Lichter, 2005; Rothman and Lichter, 2009) I have responded to Four Arrows’ request that we “offer counter-evidence to one another.” My collaborator asks why I feel a university “does not have the right to aspire toward its convictions.” I do not at all take this position. Very much to the contrary, if a private university were to articulate a vision statement about brain-washing students with politically correct goals, and stick to it, I maintain it would have every right to do so. I would not want to send my children there, nor do I think it would succeed in the marketplace of ideas, but that is entirely another matter. My indictment of these institutions of higher learning, to the contrary, is not that they honestly pursue this course of action (yes, libertarians do oppose fraud, among which false advertising is counted; Four Arrows’ hope “that free enterprise does not encourage or tolerate such a practice” is a well placed one), but rather engage in this practice in a surreptitious manner. For instance, if a college wants to highlight its opposition to “violence against homosexuals, women,” a goal I certainly support, there is nothing in the libertarian philosophy that would oppose it. And the same goes for discussing issues concerning Nixon and Kissinger and male and female wage differentials. However, let us suppose that Bob Jones University (BJU), or some other such institution of higher learning, prohibited discussion of these topics. Would this “not be a legitimate reason to invoke the concept of academic freedom,” asks Four Arrows. No it would not be, I reply. If BJU’s contract and/or vision statement proscribes such deliberations, or if Yeshiva University wishes to ban coverage of the Divinity of Christ, or if Brigham Young University desires that polygamy not be examined (I am making up these instances only for illustration purposes), then it would be improper for “academic freedom” to override these stipulations. I thought this would have been clear from Four Arrows’ new appreciation for the idea of universities “being somewhat like a business,” but one cannot have too much clarity about such issues. I did not at all “admit… that more liberal professors are taken to task in education worldwide, including imprisonment.” What I meant to say, no, what I did say, is that at times, in at least some nations, leftist professors have indeed suffered more indignities in many (non Communist-socialist) countries than those who advocate “free market corporatism.” It is not at all my view that leftish professors are brutalized to a greater degree than are rightist ones over the globe. Rather, fascist 29

CHAPTER 2

dictators do this, to be sure, but communists return the favor in the opposite direction. Yes, it would have indeed been difficult “to criticize Pinochet during his time in Chile”; but the same applies to promoting Adam Smith in East Germany or in the U.S.S.R. However, my main focus in this regard is not the rest of the world. When I insist that the professoriate mistreats conservative and libertarian faculty and students to a far greater degree than liberal ones (mainly by not hiring them in the first place, a point for which I am grateful to Four Arrows for forcing me to see), I have in mind mainly the U.S. and Canada, areas with which I have had some experience. I do not want to get into a debate about Pinochet vs. Allende while we are supposed to be discussing academic freedom. I would prefer to reserve such a dialogue for a chapter on foreign policy. But, since Four Arrows mentions the evils of the former and by implication the merits of the latter, it is only fair to note the case for the very opposite contention. See on this Stephens (2010) and McMaken (2005). Nor shall I respond, here, to Four Arrows’ points about violence against homosexuals and females, pay gaps between males and females, the warnings of ecological “science.” These are all fascinating topics, but deserve focused attention, which I intend to give them, along with I am sure my co author, in future chapters. I fear we are going to have to “agree to disagree” as to whether or not the campus (in the U.S. and Canada) is a totally owned subsidiary of the left. To me, the evidence is overwhelming. Four Arrows sees matters quite differently. I see no way to resolve this, given the attempts we have both made in this chapter. Ah, well, no one book, let alone any one chapter, can accomplish everything. Four Arrows: I hope the readers find this chapter as stimulating, challenging, interesting and ultimately enlightening as I. Although, it is obvious that we continue to articulate very differing views about academic freedom and its role in promoting in higher education, it seems that not only have we learned from one another, but we have become friends to some degree in the process, with the mutual respect that accompanies friendship. There have been some agreements and concessions that deserve mention. These may be useful in later dialogue about universities and social/ecological justice and sustainability agendas. For one, we now concur that vision statements, mission statements and employment contracts have some bearing on rights and responsibilities in higher education as relates to SEEJ. As the reader may recall, this has come from both of us having modified our original ideas as a result of the other’s arguments. It goes too far for Walter to assume that my willingness to take my position means I believe that universities should be run like businesses in all ways, a la the “free market,” but if aligning one’s work with a vision statement is a business concept, then I favor it. I also think we agree that professors of any political or ideological orientation who might stand against the hegemony of those in power are at risk if they teach their position to others. I hope that both of us will try harder to avoid the labels of left and right in future chapters, unless we can come to a mutually agreed-upon 30

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

definition of these terms. When I claim that more teachers “on the left” are terminated, imprisoned or killed worldwide than those “on the right,” I am thinking of the main feature of the modern left that relates to social progressivism, whereas my co-author is likely thinking in economic or more classical terms. In any case, our over reliance on the assumptions concretized in ideological categories seems to be an obstacle in our dialogue that I hope we can surmount. This concern deserves an explanation, not just because of its importance in this chapter, but as it relates to this entire publication. Academic freedom, SEEJ and all the related topics we discuss in this book can be too easily supported in the shadow of ideological positions, rather than in light of reason, facts, or true history. For example, Walter used the infamous story about Yale returning twenty million dollars to support his argument that a university is a “totally owned subsidiary of the left.” On first glance at the history of this event via the many editorials from the left and right about it, it would be hard not to conclude that ideology played a role as Walter indicated. However, if a more in-depth and scholarly study of the event were undertaken, a much more complex explanation would emerge than it merely being a left-wing stance by faculty and administration against the teaching of Western civilization versus a more multicultural curriculum. Even Yale’s most vocal multiculturalists say they know of no organized lobbying effort to persuade Levin to block the course for ideological reasons and there is much evidence as to other factors for the rejection of the money (Kaylin, 1995). Another example of the problem of overly biased resources was my own reliance upon using Media Matters, a left-wing research organization, to challenge Walter’s use of right-wing authors. I did some further examination and found that this nonprofit organization uses researchers with undergraduate degrees in history and receives operating donations from individuals who are likely liberal. So I was, I supposed, guilty of a double standard as Walter alleged in relying on them to make my case. So what can the two of us do to avoid such traps? Walter alluded to one simple solution when he said that the Media Matters article was not peer reviewed. Certainly Walter and I, as university professors, can agree that any research we use to support our contentions should emanate from primary sources or from peer-reviewed publications. This will not make them fault proof, but it will help avoid the ideological emphasis found in less academic writings. Consider an example of how this common approach to scholarly disagreements will make a positive difference in our future cooperative arguments. Walter mentioned, though stating he prefers to debate the issue in a later chapter, that there are opposing positions to my earlier statement about the horrors of Pinochet. He offered a Wall Street Journal editorial by Bret Stephens as a citation. Stephens is a writer/editor for the Journal’s regular column, “Global Views.” The cited article claims that after the U.S.-backed coup in 1973 that seized power from the democratically elected president, Salvador Allende, a group of Chilean economists often referred to as “the Chicago boys,” instituted a series of radical free market reforms that ultimately led to building codes that protected Chilean citizens from sustaining more damage than they did during a major earthquake. 31

CHAPTER 2

Now, in this case, like my tendency to look at Media Matters to discern whether a claim is accurate or not, it is obvious that Walter’s libertarian worldview drew him to this particular article. However, we both would agree that academic freedom or not, a professor should not have the right to teach incorrect information. I think it is more likely this will happen to us, as with the Pinochet illustration, if we reference ideologically based, non-peer reviewed publications. I will do my best to minimize such sources in the future. Avoiding the ideology-based Wall Street Journal to rebut my mentioning the villainous exploits of Pinochet, by the way, seems a good example. Why? Because Chile’s modern seismic building code, drafted to resist earthquakes, was adopted in 1972, one year before Pinochet seized power in the bloody U.S-backed coup! This is one of those peer-reviewed facts where the ideology of the author was unlikely a factor. It is found in an article entitled, “Seismic Hazard and Countermeasures in Antofagasta-Chile,” published in Bulletin of the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering. According to the article’s author, Tapia Cutierrez P., a professor in the Civil Engineering Department at Universidad Catolica del Norte in Antofagasta, Chile, “Construction is regulated however by several codes regarding both analysis and design. The Chilean Seismic Code is relatively old [3], its first version was approved in 1972 (1999, vol. 33, pp. 97–116).” (See the full abstract at: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN& cpsidt=1289347) As for Walter’s expressed desire to convert me to libertarianism, I ask that he replace this idea and instead merely continue our mutual efforts to convert one another’s thinking to that which is as reasonable and as true as we are able to determine. I am not trying to make an “Indian” of Walter, merely an honest man. Walter: I have but three minor points to make, and then, I think, we are finished with this chapter, the writing of which has been an exhilarating experience, after Four Arrows’ final whack at this piñata. My co author states: “we both would agree that academic freedom or not, a professor should not have the right to teach incorrect information.” I beg to differ. As far as I am concerned, a professor should indeed have such a right. For example, if I set up a mythical Blockhead University (my favorite university, I get to do exactly what I want, there) and announce we are going to teach things like 2+2=5, that triangles do not have 180 degrees, that water is composed of H3O, not H2O, I think I would have every right to do so. I would not be violating any libertarian law in so doing. Or, to take a more realistic example, in my view, Marxism, Keynesianism, feminism, neoclassical economics, are all vastly mistaken (the first three far more than the latter one). Professors who espouse such perspectives are thus “teaching incorrect information.” Would they, in the free society, be prevented from doing so? Of course not. Four Arrows mentions that he will do his “best to minimize” reliance on “ideologically based, non-peer reviewed publication … sources in the future.” Well, I shall not object to this course of action on his part. As for me, I shall take a different route. I fear I have a lot less faith in non ideologically based, peer reviewed publications than he. My friend “dislike(s) the labels, ‘right and left’ and ‘conservative and liberal’ and hope(s) we can do our best to avoid using them in the future.” Again, we will 32

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

just have to agree to disagree on this matter. I respect his resolution on this ground, but, will not follow him down this path. These phrases are in my opinion good shorthand terms to account for much of what takes place in political economy, and I plan to avail myself of them. I thank Four Arrows from his comments on Chilean building codes. I think it would be better if we gave this important issue a far more in depth treatment than is appropriate under the rubric of “academic freedom,” to focus of the present chapter. And I will do so later on in this book. Four Arrows: Because Walter and I have agreed that if one author begins a chapter, the other gets to finish it, I have the luxury of the last word. First, I wish to briefly clarify my position on the “right” of a professor to teach “incorrect” information. I would (once again) agree with my colleague that a professor has a “right” to teach that 2+2 is 5. In terms of our chapter on academic freedom, and the legal and ethical parameters that surround it as I understand them, this “right” would be attached to the “right” of the professor’s employer to terminate him if such incorrect teaching was consistent and demonstrated through due process. I believe it was Samuel Johnson who wrote “every man has a right to utter what he thinks is truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.” (I am here interpreting “knock him down” in the poetic sense: through evidence, reason and logic not fisticuffs). As for Walter’s lack of confidence in peer-reviewed papers, I can only agree that it is equally important to be critical of them as well as of an opinion piece. Nonetheless, I still have more confidence in primary source documentation to support a controversial position. I feel this kind of documentation is important when considering whether or not a professor should have the “academic freedom” to promote an idea. Finally, I am willing to utilize the “short-cut” language of left and right wing terms since Walter feels they are helpful. However, I feel that the great battles relating to academic freedom are at least partially a result of a dependence on affiliations with these “camps.” Douglas Ehringer wrote: “A definition of a liberal as a muddleheaded idealist who rejects time-honored values for the sake of remedying temporary social ills’ tells more about the prejudices of the person offering the definition than it does about the meaning of the term, ‘liberal’ (1974, p. 45).” When it comes to social and ecological justice, I feel that the “us versus them” ideological positions are the key to most academic freedom issues. Thus, even if we continue to use them, I hope we can avoid being trapped by them in our continuing dialogue. Because I believe so strongly that the ideological affiliations of people are basic to the problems inherent in academic freedom concerns (and likely in most of the rest of the book chapters), I end of this chapter with a relevant quote from my book, The Bum’s Rush: The Selling of Environmental Backlash (Phrases and Fallacies of Rush Limbaugh). The brand of government that opposes all radical elements ultimately leads to autocratic authority. This is something neither liberals nor conservatives want. Yet, it is the clash between the factions identify with each That sets stage for tyranny. The following is a brief description of how so-called liberals 33

CHAPTER 2

and conservatives mutually create the problem they both want to avoid. Assumptions assigned to each group swinging the pendulum of accusation from one extreme to the other until the momentum is too great to slow it down. It works something like this: Liberal: Man imagines heaven on earth that attempts to create various utopias. Conservative: This effort is radical. Perfection is not possible for man on earth. We are the is not so heavenly. The free enterprise offers the next best thing to happen-wealth. Liberal: The attainment of wealth is associated with suppression of individual rights of workers. Counter efforts include laws to restrain free enterprise. Conservative: The efforts to restrain free enterprise is associated with suppression of individual rights of entrepreneurs. Counter efforts include public criticism of lawmakers who are thought to be responsible. Liberal: People retaliate against the criticism of lawmakers by appealing to ideal values relating to global responsibility and individual dignity. Retaliation becomes more radical individualism degenerates into a responsible subjectivism. Conservative: Leaders convince masses of the futility of government efforts to achieve utopian ideals they focus on increasing social insecurity and frustration that result from social and political battles that exist. People become confused over issues of morality and choose sides. Militarism punishment and ethnocentrism than foster anarchy. Anarchy is the parent of Tierney. When people become confused and desperate they are more willing to follow and authoritarian personality. A banner of traditional values hides the arbitrary and despotic exercise of power of the new leader. People no longer try to determine what is propaganda and what is truth. The language of liberalism and conservatism thus causes people to forget we must work together to achieve goals that are not all that similar. This of course, is what we are trying to do in this book and hopefully it is the purpose of academic freedom in general (Jacobs, 1994, p. 64–65). It may also prevent us from truly understanding one another. In any case, I hope our opening chapter shows how both Walter and I are attempting to do what John Stewart Mill offers as important. He is talking about learning to know the perspective of someone with an opposing view: He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty (1947/1859).

34

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Four Arrows’ Final Position: Although I initially believed that all education should employ academic freedom without restraint, I concede now that if a private school has a vision statement that specifically claims an agenda for the university that is contradicted by the teaching of a professor, that the professor’s academic freedom could be overridden by the university policy. Walter’s Final Position: Initially I saw academic freedom as a total farce and a folly. Now I understand that, on the condition of a vision statement or employment contract so stipulating, a professor should be allowed to discuss any topic he feels is supported by such a statement.

35

CHAPTER 3

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

Four Arrows’ Initial Position: I believe education should increase awareness about sustainability and unfair distribution of the consequences of unsustainable and polluting practices, especially those intentionally perpetrated for the sake of corporate profit. Walter’s Initial Position: Free market environmentalism is the last best hope for the planet, for mankind, and for liberty and justice. This philosophy is based on a strict reliance of the twin axioms of libertarianism: the non aggression axiom and private property rights. Four Arrows: Walter, you wrote in an online article entitled, “Saving Language,” that you favor environmental justice if it is predicated on private property rights and coupled with the libertarian axiom of nonaggression. Allow me to quote you further: Air pollution? It consists of trespassing smoke particles and can best be dealt with by upholding property rights. Species extinction? Privatize the elephants and rhinos. Loss of fish stocks? Privatize the oceans. That is environmental justice in my book, no matter what the other guys say (Block, 2006A) I ask you, How on earth (no pun intended) could the privatizing of such public or collective goods as air, forests, fresh water, and oceans be a good thing in light of the continuing history of corporate sponsored destruction of natural systems and resources? I realize that scholars have debated the “tragedy of the commons” for decades. I am learning that, sadly, virtually anything is susceptible to being controlled and losing its non-rival, non-excludable, and non-apportionable status. With overpopulation and wasteful practices being what they are, I can even see where, in some cases, private ownership can do a better job of protecting environments. Duck hunters’ private hunting reserves might be an example. However, these exceptions ultimately result from the scarcity that is largely produced by materialistic consumption and the profit motive that has encouraged it. The privatizing of air, water, rivers and oceans, however, is a frightening proposition since it seems to me that this state of affairs has largely been the cause of habitat destruction, global warming, and the loss of sustainable resources. Walter: Four arrows, I fear that you are conflating my own libertarian position (aka: anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, austro-libertarianism, capitalism, classical liberalism, free enterprise, laissez faire, laissez faire capitalism, right wing anarchism) with 37

CHAPTER 3

something very, very different: economic fascism (aka: conservatism, corporate state monopoly capitalism, corporatism, crony capitalism, kleptocracy, mercantilism, mixed economy, monopoly capitalism, neo-conservatism, neo-mercantalism, state capitalism, state monopoly corporate capitalism). For example, you inveigh against “corporate profit” and “the profit motive.” But, there is all the world of difference between corporations that earn profits by satisfying consumers in an honest manner (McDonalds, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, the corner shoe store, the neighbourhood pub, the local book seller), and those that are in bed with the ruling class and are part and parcel of the U.S. government’s drive for world domination through imperialism (Archer-Daniels-Midland, Bechtel, Blackwater, Boeing, Diebold, General Electric, General (Government) Motors, Halliburton, Litton, Lockheed-Martin, Monsanto, Northrop-Grumman, Pitney-Bowes, Raytheon, Varian). Money earned by the former set of companies is paid directly to them from willing customers on a voluntary basis; not so for most of the profits deposited in the coffers of the latter; they are, to a significant degree, based on monies forcibly collected from unwilling taxpayers. The market based firms and their profits are compatible with justice, not those embodying corporate state monopoly capitalism. I must also part company with you in your condemnation of “materialistic consumption.” I don’t fully know your personal financial situation, but I am willing to bet that you own a house, a car, a television set, more than one or two pair of shoes, socks, shirts, etc. I do know that you play handball, and thus have a few pair of sneakers, handball gloves, sweat bands, handballs; I also know that you have access to a computer. We have been communicating via this product for this last little while. How do you defend yourself against the charge of “materialistic consumption?” Nor do I agree with you, at least at the outset (I am open to conversion on this or any other point) that “scarcity … is largely produced by materialistic consumption and the profit motive.” As I see matters, scarcity has nothing at all to do with either of those two phenomena. Scarcity is defined as wanting more material wealth than we already have. There will always be scarcity as long as there are human beings. Right now, right off the top of my head, I would like a cure for cancer, for AIDS, for heart disease, for mental illness, indeed, for all such debilitations. I would like no one on earth to be poor. I would like to enjoy interplanetary space travel; hey, while I’m at it, I would like us to be able to avail ourselves of trips to other solar systems, too. And, none of this 1000 years to get anywhere either. I want it to be instantaneous. All of this is presently beyond our wealth capacities; all of these failures of the human race can be put down to scarcity. Scarcity has nothing to do with “materialistic consumption.” Were we a species of Ghandis, we still would not be able to attain my goals set forth above, at present. Nor is this failure on our part due to the “profit motive.” This was pretty much banished in the now happily long ago USSR, and still remains so in economic backwaters such as Cuba and North Korea, who are far further removed from banishing scarcity than is the semi capitalist west. There are two ways to end scarcity: get an Aladdin’s Lamp that grants our every wish, or, become ascetics. But even Ghandi couldn’t act in the absence of scarcity: he used a diaper, goat’s milk, cow urine, flip flops on his feet, 38

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

medicine (for himself; he wouldn’t allow this for his wife), etc. Then, there was that slight matter of ending British imperialism in India, something that would take great wealth and power. No ascetic, he. Four Arrows, you mention air, forests, fresh water, oceans, over-population, wasteful practices and species extinction (ducks). That is as good a list as any with which to begin this chapter (I would like to add global warming, the ozone layer, running out of resources such as oil, recycling, the plastic bogeyman; I doubt you would disagree that these, also, are grist for our mill), and I am grateful to you for lining up these topics in that manner. Let me respond to you on these points in that order. AIR

In the period 1830–1840, there were a spate of nuisance lawsuits (we would now call them environmental cases) in the U.S. (Rothbard, 1982; Horwitz, 1977). Typically, a little old lady would come into court, spluttering, “That there factory engaged in aggression against my property rights. When I hung out my laundry, it was clean and wet. When I return to my clothesline a few hours later, it was dry, but dirty.” The plaintiff would demand two things: damages for the costs imposed on her in re cleaning her washing, and an injunction, forbidding the business firm from continuing its trespass of smoke particles onto her laundry. Or, a farmer would complain that the railroad emitted sparks that burned his crops. He, too, pleaded for damages and an injunction. Or, someone would complain that crop dusting, or residential smokestacks, or some other source of pollution was violating his property rights, and come to court for similar relief. It is not true to say that these victims of this pollution always prevailed in their lawsuits. Sometimes, in these early days, they were thrown out of court. But, often, they were upheld, and the smoke particle or spark trespassers were forced to cease and desist. This had several salutary effects. At one fell swoop, the entire externalities or market failure argument was undermined. It was obvious, in that far off time, that the market had not “failed.” Rather, it was working just fine, albeit never perfectly, as no institution known to man ever does. For example, the polluters were led by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” to substitute clean burning, but more expensive anthracite coal for the cheaper and dirty burning sulphur coal previously in use. This meant that the so called “externality” was internalized. These trespassers were now taking the costs they imposed on others into account. There were also some research and development attempts to reduce pollution of any type or variety by use of screens in smokestacks to catch the runaway particles before they seeped out onto other people’s property, and spark catchers on railroad engines. Locational decisions were also affected. New factories would tend to be set up where they would do the least damage to others, the better to avoid lawsuits. Further, there are almost always different ways to skin the proverbial cat: one can engage in pollution intensive, or non intensive, modalities. In this early era, the latter would naturally predominate. Given that the pollution problem was not perfectly solved, there were always de minimum issues abounding, at least it was being dealt with in a rational manner. 39

CHAPTER 3

But then came the “Progressive” period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A new philosophy permeated the American judiciary. At the time Great Britain was the world’s greatest power. The U.S. sought to become the leading imperialist. How could this be accomplished? By allowing little old ladies, farmers, and other whiners to be a burr under the saddle of munitions makers, steel producers, railroads and other heavy industries? Of course not. So during this period and afterward, environmental plaintiffs were in effect told by judges under this new legal philosophy, “Sure, your private property rights are being violated; your silly, anti social, snivelling, greedy, private property rights, that is. But there is something more important than them: the public good! (drum roll, please). Under this new dispensation, the court argued, the public good must now support basic manufacturing, so that battleships, munitions, tanks, etc., can be cheaply produced; thus, society cannot afford to uphold private property rights that are inconsistent with this goal, as it has done in the past. And, such cases, which were taken seriously in the early epoch, were now summarily dismissed. States Rothbard (1982): In the classic case of Holman v. Athens Empire Laundry Co. (1919), the Supreme Court of Georgia declared: “The pollution of the air, so far as reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society, is not actionable.” Well, if pollution is not “actionable,” why ever would a manufacturer cease and desist from violating the property rights of environmental victims? Consider the position of a libertarian, or “green” railroad, or factory. On the one hand, it would not want to pollute others. But, on the other hand, if it refrained from shifting some of its costs onto others, it would be at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other members of its industry. It would either tend to go bankrupt, or bend to this new legal wind, and violate the private property rights of others. So, no more anthracite coal (which was mainly produced in western states, such as Colorado and Wyoming). Sulphur coal (produced in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states with more political pull – note the crony capitalism at work here) was back in style (Kolko, 1963). Research and development, and the placement of pollution intensive manufacturing would now be located without any consideration of lungs or clean laundry. Profits could now be maximized by employing pollution intensive means of production. The courts did, however, offer a sop to the plaintiffs during this era: minimum smokestack heights were imposed. But this only swept the problem under the rug, or, rather, into the clouds. Hello, acid rain. When, in the 1960s and thereafter, it was finally realized that pollution was a problem, did the state apparatus go back to the relatively libertarian legal system of the early 19th century? To ask this is to answer it: of course not. This would have meant “turning the clock backwards.” We are all progressives, now. Not for us such an antiquarian system. Instead, after first itself creating the crisis by denigrating private property rights, it added on yet other layers of government intervention, the so called “Clean Air Act,” etc. As can be readily appreciated, this was not laissez faire capitalism in operation. Rather, it was the triumph of monopoly state corporate capitalism. Four Arrows, in 40

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

one sense we agree: this debacle was indeed due to “corporate sponsored destruction of natural systems.” But, this stemmed not from anything even remotely related to laissez faire capitalism, with its respect, nay, worship of private property rights. Rather, it was due to economic fascism. FORESTS

Why would the privatization of forests help promote environmental goals? Simple. When forest land is in private hands, if the owner makes wise decisions with regard to his property, he can earn honest profits. And, with them, he can expand the base of his operations. If on the contrary, he errs, whether with regard to planting, or harvesting, or controlled fire burns, or chain cutting trees, or replanting, or with his decision to build a logging road or not, what kind of capital and labor to employ, what type of tree to plant, monoculture or diversity of tree species, whether to encourage animal life, etc., then he will make losses (the other part of the profit and loss system, where each part is of equal importance). If so, he will not be able to purchase more land. Rather, he will have to cut back on his operations. If he does not learn from his mistakes and improve efficiency, he will eventually be forced into bankruptcy (always assuming no corporate capitalist “too big to fail” bailouts). This constitutes an automatic feedback mechanism. If efficient operators are continually being rewarded for productivity, and satisfying customers, and inefficient ones penalized, the overall state of the industry will be one of prosperity and growth. Here is a list of very large companies that now lie on the dustbin of business history. None of them are from the forestry industry, but all make the general point in favour of profits and losses, of the beneficial effects on the entire economy of bankruptcy (Ross, n.d., Salomon, 2009): AIG, American Motors, Braniff, Circuit City, CIT, Conseco, De Soto, Eastman Kodak, Enron Corp., FCOA, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Linens ‘n Things, Nash, National Sugar Refining, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Packard, Pan Am, Refco Inc, Ritz Camera, Studebaker, Texaco, Trans World Airlines, United Shoe Machinery Company, Washington Mutual and WorldCom Inc.1 And this is to say nothing of the thousands of blacksmiths, horse trainers, horseshoe, saddle and whip manufacturers positively trashed by the onset of Ford and other horseless carriage firms. According to one commentator (Perry, 2010): Comparing the Fortune 500 in 1959 to 2009, I find that there are only 72 companies that appear in both lists. In other words, only 14% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1959 were still on the list fifty years later in 2009, and 86% of the companies have either gone bankrupt, merged, gone private, or still exist but have fallen from the top 500 companies (ranked by gross revenue). That’s a lot of churning and creative destruction, and it’s probably safe to say that many of today’s Fortune 500 like the ones listed above will be replaced by new companies in new industries by the year 2059. In sharp contrast, in very sharp contrast, if the forests are in the hands of the government, for example under the tender mercies of the Bureau of Land Management 41

CHAPTER 3

(BLM), then this automatic feedback mechanism is almost completely stifled. When the BLM errs, and, being human, they always do, they are not automatically penalized financially. Au contraire, the very opposite often occurs. More and more money is shovelled down their selfish maws. A case in point: are controlled burns economical? Do they preserve resources? Promote ecological considerations? I am not a biologist; I am not sure. However, as an economist I know this: if they are viable, then those private owners who allow or encourage them will prosper; if not, not. Whereas, there is no such guarantee that applies to the BLM. The U.S. Post Office has lost zillions of dollars; have they gone the way of these now extinct private businesses? I’ll give you one guess. One last example; since its inception, the Fed has presided over the loss of 95% of the value of the dollar it presumably has a mandate to protect. Have they gone the way of the dodo bird? Not at all. How about on the rare occasions when a public entity makes a correct decision; is their budget automatically increased? Of course not. There are other reasons why privatization is to be preferred to public ownership, and this holds true whether the firms are environmentally related or involve other industries. Mises (1922) makes the point that if industry is in government hands, there can be no private capital markets, and without them rational economic planning is impossible. Hayek (1937) demonstrates that a price system, emanating from private markets, is necessary for the spread of information throughout the economy. FRESH WATER

There is “water, water, water, everywhere, and not a drop to drink” at least that is healthy, in all too many cases of government provision. One case in point is the issue of breast milk substitutes put out by firms such as Nestle. This corporation has been heavily criticized for increasing infant mortality (Nestle, n.d., Begley, 2002), but the real problem is the poor condition of the water mixed with this baby formula, and, of course, it is the governments in less well developed countries that are the monopoly suppliers of H2O. I make this point not to defend everything the Nestle corporation has ever done; merely to spotlight the problems with statist water in underdeveloped nations. The public sectors of the developed countries do fare a bit better than that in providing water, but that is not saying much at all. Perhaps the greatest indictment of statist water supply is the advent of bottled water. Here we have a situation where the government gives away a good absolutely for free, and a significant portion of consumers spurn it, in favour of the greater reliability of the private sector alternative, which comes to them at a not insignificant cost. There can hardly be greater evidence of the relative efficacy of these two very different sources of supply. And what is the government’s reaction to consumers spurning its free product, and embracing the costly private alternative? It is, of course, to ban its competition (Breaking News, 2008; Cho, 2006, Olson, 1999). When government disburses commercial levels of water for a fee, its pricing policy is misallocative. For example, it charges a very high price per acre foot to city dwellers, while heavily subsidizing farmers (Anderson, 1998; Anderson, and 42

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

Snyder, 1997; Reyburn, 1992; Sutter, 2010; Whitehead, Gould and Block, 2004; Whitehead and Block, 2002), and does not allow a private water market to overcome this inefficiency. This in effect wastes water, since it cannot “flow” to the users who value it most highly. Suppose apples were selling for $5 per crate in Santa Barbara, and $200 for this amount in New Orleans. The supply of this fruit would be too high in the former city, and too low in the latter. Arbitrageurs would soon enough purchase the apples at low prices in California, and ship them to Louisiana, thereby earning a profit, of course, and creating economic wealth by ironing out this misallocation. But this is not allowed in the case of water, which, in effect, destroys a significant amount of the economic value of this substance for society. Then there are international governmental water policies that lead to wrack and ruin. For example, Canada, which is literally up to its armpits in this fluid, refuses to allow sales to parched parts of its southern neighbour (Lendman, 2010). There are even Americans who counsel Canada not to sell water in bulk to the U.S. (Howatt, 2008). This northern nation’s population comprises a mere one half of one percent of the world’s total (it has about as many people as does California). And yet it contains about 20% of the entire planet’s fresh water supply. Because of political correctness, it prohibits bulk sales of this commodity, insisting that any exports be limited to containers containing no more than about 8 gallons. “Progressive” forces utterly despise “commodificiation,” that is, allowing markets to prevail (Anderson and Barnett, 1999; Barnett, 1988; Block, 1999), in several fields other than water. This, perhaps, accounts for Canada’s refusal to allow bulk water exports. No, no, no, society would be far better off if there was a separation of state and fresh water, just as in the case of state and religion, state and education, for that matter, state and just about anything else you could mention. OCEANS

The oceans, seas, rivers and lakes are not pulling their full economic weight (Anderson, 1983; Anderson, and Snyder, 1997; Block, 1992, 2001A, 2001B; Hannesson, 2004, 2006; Motichek, Block and Johnson, 2008; Rothbard, 1955, 1956A, 1956B, 1985, 2007; Sutter, 2010; Tucker, 2008; Whitehead and Block, 2002; Whitehead, Gould and Block, 2004). They are the backwaters of commercial development. This is due, not to anything intrinsic about them, but, rather, to the fact that they are in a state of non ownership, or government ownership, each one worse than the other. Property rights merely delineate who has a right to work with which resources. In their absence, matters are unclear. But without unambiguous assignment of tasks and responsibilities, we cannot cooperate with one another as well as when there is such specificity. One example of this is overfishing. Since no one owns the fishing rights in the oceans, a resource that could be greatly contributing to human welfare is instead on the verge of dissipation. Due to the tragedy of the commons involved, the incentive of a fisherman to preserve some stocks for a later day is greatly atrophied. If he does, someone else may come along to take advantage of the seed corn of the sea that he spurned. The results of this phenomenon were dramatically illustrated in the 43

CHAPTER 3

case of the whale, with the movie “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.” There, an alien super race threatens us humans; they are upset that we have hunted the whales to extinction. But, this is economically advantageous under present institutional arrangements. Why should any given whaling ship not harpoon one of these creatures? If it refrains, it is unlikely in the extreme that it will ever get another chance at that particular mammal. However, if the ocean were owned, property rights in whales would be clear. If anyone else harvested my whale, this would then constitute a crime similar to cattle rustling. Similar problems beset other aspects of the ocean. It is unclear as to who is the owner of below surface oil deposits, and manganese nodules resting on the ocean floor. At present, surface paths for boats still are not scarce, but, if governments stop creating economic depressions and we once again experience growth in real GDP, traffic will undoubtedly increase. Who will set up the rules of the “road,” on the surface of our seas? The libertarian answer is clear: the water which covers some 75% of our earth’s surface should be treated in much the same manner as the land. Ownership should be based on homesteading, with free markets in the purchase and sale to follow. The same analysis applies to lakes. Should they be used for boating, or fishing, or swimming? Or, perhaps as a garbage dump? Maybe as a source of drinking water? The only rational solution to these problems of alternative uses is private property, the price system, and the profit motive. This is precisely why countries that follow such a rationale on the land prosper, and enjoy economic development. Should a given bit of land be used for residences, shops, a hotel, an office building? The market decides such questions, automatically, without fuss or fanfare. Were this system adopted for lakes, similar benefits would ensue: there would tend to be a congruence between consumer desires and actualities. And, ditto for rivers, the Army Corp of Engineers and FEMA, between them, managed to kill off some 1,500 people in the New Orleans area (Block, 2006, Block and Rockwell, 2007). Are these entities still at the same old lemonade stand, “selling” their wares to the unwary? Of course they are. It would appear that the Army Corp of Engineers is incapable of building levies that can withstand hurricanes, their assurances and braggadocio to the contrary notwithstanding (Fausset, 2009; Hoar, 2006). Were these organization private, they would have joined the ranks of other bankrupt firms. They governmental status ensures that they still operate. OVER-POPULATION

There is no over population problem (Bauer, 1981; Block, 2009; Friedman, 1972; Simon, 1990, 1996; Sowell, tba) advocates to the contrary (Ehrlich, 1968) notwithstanding. According to the views of latter day Malthusians, it is a race between population growth, and the carrying capacity of the earth to accommodate ever larger and larger numbers of people. Eventually, we will run out of food, resources, and even space on which to place these hordes; we will become poorer and poorer, and large number of us will die of starvation. If this were true, we should see, even nowadays (in 1968 Ehrlich predicted this doomsday occurrence would unfold in 44

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

the 1980s), a negative correlation between wealth and population density. In other words, the more a given locale resembles this horror scenario (that is, high population density), the poorer it would be. But the facts simply do not bear this out. Yes, there are poor high dense places (cities in India) and rich areas with little population (the American west), but there are also very wealthy metropolises with gigantic populations per square mile (Manhattan, San Francisco) and impoverished ones with very few people in them (large parts of Africa). There is simply no statistically significant correlation between the two. The best explanation of poverty, world wide, is not population density, but rather economic freedom (Gwartney, Lawson and Block, 1996) and intelligence (Lynn, and Vanhanen, 2002, 2006). States Richman (1995) “Between 1776 and 1975, while the world’s population increased sixfold, real gross world product rose about 80-fold.” The naked eye, at least given the bird’s eye view afforded by airplane travel, casts doubt on the overpopulation thesis. Cast your eyes down west of the Mississippi at night, and hardly ever a pin prick of light will you ever see. This is true, albeit less so, east of this river. With the exception of the Boston – DC corridor, the eastern half of the U.S. looks as if it is empty, too. To put this in even more stark terms, consider the following. Suppose the entire population of the globe were housed in typical middle class family homes of about 2500 square feet on two levels, with small front and back yards. There would be nothing else in this scenario: no shops, no roads, no farms, no nothing else. What land mass would be required to house all six plus billion of us? Answer: Texas. Here is one more dramatic way of undermining the overpopulationist hysteria. Suppose the world’s population tried to stuff themselves into a phone booth. Each of us would be allotted an amount of cubic space necessary for the average person: about 5’8” in height, about 10 inches in depth, and about two feet in width. What would be the dimensions of a box necessary to hold us all? One cubic mile! The earth is empty, and will remain so for a long time to come. What will happen then, in several centuries, when we reach, say, 100 billion? Why, space travel, colonization of at least the Moon and Mars, assuming we have not blown ourselves up before then. One last critique of over populationism. It is logically impossible for anyone to even articulate such a philosophy; it would constitute a performative contradiction. For suppose someone, a Malthusian, says, “There are too many people on the earth, and I think this a bad thing.” The obvious rejoinder to him is, “Well, if you are so worried about this, why don’t you commit suicide? You have it within your power to reduce the size of the population by one. By your very utterance, you have proven you don’t take your own views seriously; otherwise you would be dead. If you are not serious about this, why should anyone think you are in earnest about it?” SPECIES EXTINCTION

It occurs to me, Four Arrows, that on this issue we might not be too far apart. Your statement: “Duck hunters’ private hunting reserves might be an example… (where) … private ownership can do a better job of protecting environments,” is certainly compatible with the way that free market environmentalists look at the matter. If only this message could get out to people of your persuasion, there might be less 45

CHAPTER 3

intellectual strife between our two camps. In order to promote this end, I shall elaborate on how private property can save endangered species. The most dramatic example of this phenomenon involves the comparison of the cow and the buffalo. Although in many ways these are similar animals, the former was always owned privately, not the latter. No farmer goes into his “lower 40” and machine guns all his cows. To do so would be extremely expensive. The cost of a cow slaughtered today is the absence of that bovine tomorrow. Matters are very different with the buffalo, which were running free for decades. In that case, the cost of killing one of this species was very low; approximately zero. You couldn’t “save” this particular one for tomorrow, as you could, a cow. It was the absence of private property rights in the one case, that led to the wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of one of these animals. This fate was spared the other, due to the presence of private property rights, and thus their owners had a strong profit making incentive to preserve and protect them. As far as I am concerned, this lesson applies, fully, to the elephant, the rhino, and other at risk species in Africa. Barnyardization, and only barnyardization, will save them. Yes, the barnyards will have to be a bit bigger; ok, quite a bit bigger. And the fences stronger. But the principle is the same: if the elephant and rhino are privately owned, they will be cared for. Never in a million years would an owner allow a pregnant rhino to be shot (except for very, very big bucks paid by a hunter, a la your duck hunter case.) Whereas, with “public” ownership, or non ownership, the poachers have no such preservation incentive (Simmons and Kreuter, 1989). They often kill for the tusks alone, leaving the valuable skin and meat to rot in the jungle. Their time horizon will be limited to the next few hours; the fact that their actions, when replicated, will spell the death knell for the entire species matters to them not at all. What should educators teach about the environment? Anything they damn well please as far as I am concerned. It is still a (semi) free country, and professors should feel free to uphold whatever hypotheses they wish (assuming no contractual obligations to the contrary). However, if they want to tell the truth, they must embrace free market environmentalism. Four Arrows: As I contemplate the reasons for your ideas, assumptions and statements in this chapter, I can imagine them fitting into one of five possibilities. You are: – An alien from another planet – A religious fundamentalist whose view of reality is blinded by the gospel of his religion, in this case, free market libertarianism, or what have you – A “white man” who will say or rationalize anything to make way for the almighty dollar – A highly intelligent, good-hearted soul whose education has not yet allowed for learning a number of vital truths about history – Someone with a perspective that must have enough grains of truth in it to make it important for me to understand them even though they make little sense to me now 46

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

I continue to operate in accordance with the last two options, but offer the first three to emphasize how truly puzzled, even mortified I am, at least initially, by your comments. Because I genuinely want to understand what I obviously do not, I want to select a few of your comments and, rather than countering the veracity with counter-evidence and scholarly citations, I want to briefly offer my counter thinking in general. Within this context I ask you to explain where I am missing the boat in your estimation. If you do not accept my example and need a citation, just let me know and I’ll comply. If you accept the fact of my example, however, then please explain how your position holds water in light of it or, how you might modify your description of it so I can better understand. I will sub-topic each idea for clarity. POLLUTION

Walter, you seem to argue that prior to government regulation of environmental pollution, laissez faire capitalism worked reasonably well on its own to reduce pollution. You also quote a 1919 law to conclude that air pollution is not “actionable” and that somehow this proves that other motivations, presumably free market demand and supply laws, motivate manufactures to “cease and desist from violating the property rights of environmental victims.” Am I understanding you correctly? And if so, how can your assertion be so totally incorrect in terms of even a cursory glance at history? And why would the existence today of regulatory laws like the Clean Air Act cause corporations to pollute? This makes no sense at all. For every incident you can show me, and I doubt you will be able to show me many, where a business curtailed or prevented pollution on its own, without pressure from the public or from laws, and I will cite fifty where it required such pressure. Furthermore, you are wrong that air pollution is not actionable as a number of court decisions all the way up to the recent Ohio decision make air pollution illegal (Hunt, 2010). Although, sadly, common law remains weak in this arena, it certainly does not still hinge on the 1919 case you cited (Morag-Levine, 2003). In fact, it seems that many if not all of your arguments in this section can be challenged with a correct understanding of history. I will get to Gandhi, materialism, scarcity, barnyardization and the killing of buffalo with similar historical snippets. For now, tell me how the following shows that the problems you describe as resulting from the “progressive era” did not exist previously? I conveniently quote just a few incidents from Kovarik’s “Environmental History Timeline” (2008) which is available online. Please read them to gain the perspective I’m asking you to see historically. 1700 – Some 600 ships are engaged in hauling “sea coal” from Newcastle to London, an enormous increase compared to 1650, when only two ships regularly carried sea coal. The reason? Rapid industrialization and the demand for iron and naval supplies has stripped England’s forests. 1706 – Benjamin Franklin born January 17 in Boston, Mass. Franklin’s concern for sanitation and pure drinking water was a part of his lifelong concern for 47

CHAPTER 3

the improvement of Philadelphia in “small matters.” But Franklin also saw a larger question – one of “public rights” as opposed to private rights – in many of these controversies. 1739 – Benjamin Franklin and neighbors petition Pennsylvania Assembly to stop waste dumping and remove tanneries from Philadelphia’s commercial district. Foul smell, lower property values, disease and interference with fire fighting are cited. The industries complain that their rights are being violated, but Franklin argues for “public rights.” Franklin and the environmentalists win a symbolic battle but the dumping goes on. 1778 – India – Belief in protection of the animal and plant kingdom reached its apotheosis in 1778 when 294 men and 69 women laid down their lives to protect the khejri tree. 1834 – London officials bring nuisance charges against a coal - gas manufacturing firm that contaminated the Thames by releasing large amounts of coal tar from the plant. Although other indictments had been brought, Rex v. Medley was apparently the first to have been successfully prosecuted. “Defendants unlawfully and injuriously conveyed great quantities of filthy, noxious, unwholesome and deleterious liquids, matters, scum and refuse into the river Thames, whereby the waters became charged and impregnated with the said liquid and became corrupted and insalubrious and unfit for the use of his Majesty’s subjects. People who supported themselves and their families by catching and selling fish were deprived of their employment and reduced to great poverty and distress.” 1853 – Novelist Charles Dickens opens his novel Bleak House with an image of London as a twisted, twilight world of smoke, shadows and wraiths. Dickens writes: “Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snow flakes – gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun.” 1860 – Promoting solar energy, Prof. Augustine Mouchot of Lycee de Tours, France, said: “One cannot help coming to the conclusion that it would be prudent and wise not to fall asleep regarding this quasi security. Eventually industry will no longer find in Europe the resources to satisfy its prodigious expansion Coal will undoubtedly be used up. What will industry do then?” 1863 – Air pollution from British chemical industry spurs the Alkali Act, intended to create reductions in hydrogen chloride emissions during alkali production. It allows agents of the first British pollution control agency, the Alkali inspectorate, to question industry officials and suggest improvements; but there were no actual regulations concerning amounts of air pollution until the act was revised in 1906. 1870 – Jan. 10 – John D. Rockefeller incorporates the Standard Oil Company. Predatory business practices help it to monopolize the oil industry.1870 – First

48

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

coal mine safety laws passed in Pennsylvania following a fire that suffocated 179 men. 1871 – U.S. Fish Commission formed to study decline of coastal fisheries. A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE?

You say “there is world of difference between corporations that earn profits by satisfying consumers in an honest manner” like McDonalds and Wal-Mart and the local book seller in contrast with those like Halliburton, Monsanto or G.E. that are somehow in cahoots with the federal government. You say that we taxpayers unwillingly pay money to the latter and the former are compatible with SEEJ. Walter, I fear you are drawing a very thin line, too thin. For example, Wal-Mart has significant ties to the government and its politics. It donates millions of dollars to political candidates and spends millions more are more than a dozen inside the beltway lobbyist and outside federal lobbying firms. It refuses to carry books supporting views that oppose the political party it supports with its money. For example, it refused to carry the best selling book, America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy In-Action in 2004 as well as banning Robert Greenwalds’s documentary Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War. It has its own Federal Government Relations Department in Washington, D.C. As for its “honest” services, Walter, please don’t make me or the readers go through a long list of researched items revealing Wal-Mart’s dishonest policies as relates to everything from its “green” ecological footprint to its employee relations history. I am simply making the point that the difference between the two groups or styles of capitalism are not all that different. Don’t get me wrong, we can find some “good corporations,” but they are not the rule in terms of the global problems we are facing. Had you selected Wal-Mart’s competitor, Costco, by the way, I would have noted some serious reasons why Costco is better, like no PR firm, a CEO willing to earn less than a million a year, etc. But again, this would illustrate a rarity among corporations or corporate goals. Oh, you did name a “corner book seller.” I was wondering if it was one of those that Wal-Mart put out of business! Then you include McDonald’s as another good capitalism model. Yeah, now there is an honest company with a great environmental track record. I’ve just looked at the history of its law suits and settlements. You don’t want to go there. And although I did not spend much time on its government cronyism, a brief check on Google revealed official Italian government endorsement and partnerships with McDonalds (MSNBC, Feb 2, 2010). Then there is Nestles, a company you cautiously put forward. Here you have chosen another example of a corporation with a profit motive on the “good guy side” that does good for our environment. I suggest our readers do some primary source research about this company’s unethical marketing practices that encourage mothers to use unhealthy water and mix with the product; their exploitation of farms and promotion of genetically modified foods that can wreak havoc with biological diversity; the illegal extraction of groundwater (they just lost a suit in Michigan on this matter (Leonard, 2009); fraudulent labeling; pollution, etc. Nestle Sources 49

CHAPTER 3

Shanghai Ltd’s bottled water manufacturing plant also made the list for starting operation before its wastewater treatment facilities had passed an environmental impact assessment. Nestlé has taken water from numerous U.S. communities on the cheap or for nothing at all, bottled and sold it — for billions of dollars in profit — and then dumped the environmental and other costs onto society. And this relates only to one of their many enterprises. It does not even speak to one of the worst growing environmental problems facing us, that of plastic debris in our oceans (such as Nestle water bottles). I’m hoping, Walter, that you are aware of the North Pacific Gyre’s plastic garbage patch and the four others like it around the world and the current science projects surrounding possibilities for consequences that are dire for all of us. All I am saying is that too many corporations have emerged in the world that focus on the quarterly profit report to the exclusion of any authentic concern for what their product does to the environment. I could write an entire book on this topic alone. So, Walter, I just want you to tell me if you believe your ideas about free market capitalism are widespread and have been historically. How many firms do you honestly feel have emphasized social and ecological justice for workers, the public and the environment? If you agree they are few and far between, or even that there may be many but the larger ones you list are on the bad side of things, then maybe we are both yearning for a similar ideal that does not exist Maybe there is a reason that when most small corporations get big, they turn sociopathic that we need to understand. If it relates partially to problem Eisenhower pointed about the military-industrial complex let’s get higher education to study it. Maybe there is a reason that throughout history, corporations or large businesses worldwide have done violence to others with their business practices. Since you and I agree that doing such violence is a social or ecological injustice that colleges and universities should address, we should agree that this is a vital topic for universities. However, your simple statement that free enterprise is the only solution does not stand the test of history. BUFFALOS AND BARNYARDS

Walter, saying that the killing off of the buffalo happened because there was no “cost” factor reveals one of my criticisms of all types of capitalism- that they place monetary considerations ahead of all others. The idea that “costs” only relate to monetary considerations is vulgar to me. To suggest that there was no cost to the slaughter of the buffalo apart from monetary ones ignores the very great “cost” to the “Indians.” It disregards the intentional policy of the U.S. government to destroy the Indian way of life and compel them to adopt the habits of civilization. And yes, this also relates to the state/private industry partnerships that it seems we both do not like. The government provided free ammunition for people to kill the animals as a matter of anti-Indian policy and a continuation of the 1830 Indian Removal Act (American University, n.d.). President Grant even vetoed a bill in 1875 to protect buffalo or any other wildlife. Would you call this the opposite of federal regulation? Or is this an example of crony capitalism? In your view is government is the enemy 50

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

of capitalism or the friend? And how does your answer square with historical facts, not white-washed stories of conquest? Your idea about putting all creatures into some sort of zoo as a way to save them also seems to devalue that which cannot be directly tied to money and the unfettered, unregulated pursuit of it. History again shows that the decimation of species originated by business and industry making room for themselves at the expense of the flora and fauna. Game preserves were not set up, except as relates to a few private hunter clubs I referred to earlier. This was done not by private industry, but by public entities. That is what has prevented total extinction of some species and have allowed them to roam in their natural habitat as opposed to zoos or “barnyards.” You speak of illegal poaching on game preserves, but have you considered that that game preserves are what have saved a number of animals from extinction? Poaching by those who would selling their products on the “free market” (is a black market free?) would and does occur on private properties as well. Maybe I’ve moved into a spiritual perspective here, but I should ask if your thinking is that everything on Earth should exist solely for human exploitation under the religion of free market capitalism? THE OCEANS

Let’s say the oceans were divided up into privately owned sections as you want. History shows that, just like cattle rustling or corporate take-overs or invasion of other lands, people will encroach into territories other than their own to make a better profit, especially after they have destroyed their own place of business. Now, some places in the oceans have more whales than others. Do you really believe that a fishing company that owns a section will hire security to monitor such large sections of water? Will this really solve anything? Tell me what you think about the shrimp industry, whether farmed or trawled, and how this form of capitalism is not devastating our oceans and how it would not continue to do so if the oceans were privately owned? (Better read my book on this subject (The Shrimp Habit: How it is Destroying our World and What you Can Do About It?) first. If Ecuadorian shrimp farms managed to destroy most of their mangrove swamps before they realized they were about to go out of business and then adopted ecological processes, what does this say about the free market and short term thinking of capitalism? Even with this knowledge, Mexican industries, knowing that they can make more money faster without the extra ecological measures, do it the worst way imaginable for the environment. Doesn’t this constitute more evidence that as long as greed and the lust for more and higher profits exists in free market capitalism, such problems will continue and must, at least temporarily, be regulated? And how can you use land as a positive model for how the oceans could be if they were also privatized? Do I need to cite how much forest has been destroyed worldwide? How much arable land is left? How many streams and lakes are polluted? How many cities have warnings about breathing the air? How much biodiversity has been lost? What real evidence do you have that privatizing water, whether forced as was tried by multinationals in Bolivia or promoted via false 51

CHAPTER 3

advertising as with many bottled water companies, is good for the ecology and for ecological justice? GANDHI AND MATERIALISM

I should have defined what I meant by “materialism” when I challenged it. When I use this word, I refer to how under the influence of Western and especially American capitalism, material goods and services have become valued excessively. In fact, many have written about this problem with Thoreau one of the most notable. Gandhi’s philosophy, greatly influenced by Thoreau, was about simplifying, reducing the consumption of material goods. You are saying he wore shoes or that I use a computer proves we are all materialists is true enough but completely misses any conception of “over consumption.” Such over- consumption, and I’ll let you define it in any way you wish, comes largely from the profit motive and the ability of large amounts of money to inspire people to buy more and more. Most places in the world, for example, use far less energy than does the U.S. Gandhi’s example simply demonstrates that consumerism can go too far. Overconsumption by one group can lead to underconsumption by another in ways that are doing violence to the have-nots. Such violence, as you recall, is an SEEJ problem. Do you disagree with this idea? You say that “scarcity has nothing to do with materialism.” Would you say that overconsumption of hamburgers and wood materials for building and paper have nothing to do with an “overly materialistic” culture? Would you say that such a demand for products, motivated by industry creating the consumer needs as much as the consumer wanting them independently, has had anything to do with deforestation? SEEJ IN HIGHER EDUCATION

You conclude by stating that faculty can teach anything they want but that if they are going to teach the truth they should teach that free enterprise is the best way to protect the environment. Based on our experience with all versions of free enterprise, from McDonald’s to Monsanto that exist not in theory but in reality, would you not at least concede that some discussion about the pros and cons in light of the historical record is more scholarly? Walter, your arguments remind me of those I have with a cousin who is a Christian fundamentalist (which is why I listed that possibility above.) He is a brilliant physician, director of an HMO, an astronomer, and a very generous person. I am always unsuccessful in trying to make a connection between structural deficiencies in his religion and how they have caused great harm in the world. He generally responds by saying that this is because all problems resulted merely from misinterpretation or misapplication of the intended structures. If the idea of free market capitalism that you embrace is also so full of misinterpretation and misapplication in the historical record, don’t we have a similar problem? As an American Indian who lives as best he can in two different worlds, I nonetheless embrace, at least philosophically, the worldview that our Indigenous ancestors 52

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

practiced for tens of thousands of years in ways that preserved natural systems. I claim this was done intentionally far more effectively than has ever been the case under the system of private property and capitalism that has destroyed much in a very short while. I note that the Indigenous world view would not think private possession of land is sacred at all. Possessing rivers, lakes, mountains or forests was an inconceivable concept. Yet both your libertarian and my Indigenous worldview also reject central government, hierarchal structures, and regulations on liberties. So in a way our ultimate goals are similar. So where can we go with our two views that can make sense in the light of history? I realize that capitalism has brought forth an amazing technical lifestyle and ability to travel, etc. I also realize that Indigenous people were and are being attacked constantly as are their lands. Should college students talk about private property as a questionable practice? Should we all discuss what happens when one believes in private property as sacred and the other believes that Nature is sacred (too sacred to be owned privately)? The Indigenous value system, which emphasized generosity over greed in all matters, managed to maintain a harmony with natural systems for more than sixty thousand years. Now, unless you want to quote me the BS about Indians not intentionally caring for the environment, running buffalo off of cliffs or overusing seafood, things that I and other scholars expose as falsehoods in my University of Texas Press text, Unlearning the Language of Conquest, would you not at least add that in addition to teaching about your version of free market, private ownership in colleges, that some research and dialogue about the Indigenous way would be warranted? CONCLUDING REMARKS

One thing I have come to possibly accept that I did not imagine I would is that both our philosophies ultimately are based on the premise that human nature, when truly left to its own accord, will take care of others or at least try to do so sincerely. I do not think it is natural to destroy one’s environment or make war. I have come to realize that your trust in libertarianism somehow relates to this positive view of humans. Am I wrong? I also believe we both are against any coercion from any source occurs, whether a powerful and wealthy capitalist, a government official or a “bleeding heart liberal.” Such pressures cause a chain reaction that increases the odds that the offence/defense posturing of people begins a cycle that causes everyone to lose sight of their highest consciousness. Do you know what I mean? Are we close on this do you think? What I wish we could do, and it seems unlikely at this point, is come to terms with how the examples of capitalism as it has generally been practiced throughout history have caused such a terrible ecological situation. But maybe you will have some insight in your reply. Walter: I was once in a public debate with a young man when I was a Professor at Holy Cross College in the 1990s; he was then a recently minted Ph.D. in biology 53

CHAPTER 3

with a specialty in environmentalism. In his entire experience, he had never even once heard of the school of thought I favor, free market environmentalism. If I had to define this briefly, it would be that it is an economic analysis of ecological problems, predicated upon an appreciation of private property rights and the benefits of free enterprise. If there is one constant refrain in this perspective, it is that the environmental problems we now face stem from a lack of laissez faire capitalism, and the solution to them is to uphold this system. As I was explaining this to the audience, I was watching my debate opponent out of the corner of my eye. First, a puzzled look came over his face; he didn’t quite understand what I was talking about. But then, quite quickly, he grasped the gist of it. (He was a bright fellow, after all, despite his disagreement with me.) And, do you know what his reaction was, Four Arrows? He burst out into laughter. Not just a few giggles emanated from him. This was a full out rolling on the floor, grasping for breath, type of reaction. Nor, was it posed, in order to denigrate me and my position. Honestly, it just struck him as hilarious that anyone could seriously articulate the viewpoint I was defending. This experience was the most dramatic of all of my presentations of free market environmentalism. But, whenever I lecture to hostile (e.g., non libertarian) audiences, I get much the same reaction, albeit sometimes less spectacular than that one. My speeches are met with derision, hostility, booing, etc. Your description (“truly puzzled, even mortified”) is somewhat along these lines. My freshman classes respond in much the same way, although given the context, they are a bit more subdued. I fear that many of the readers of this book will be shocked by free market environmentalism. So, I shall take more care than usual to spell out this philosophy, as per your request of me. I begin with Adam Smith’s (1776) famous doctrine of the “invisible hand” (I do indeed think you are “missing the boat” with regard to it): ... every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. POLLUTION

Here is yet another way to define free market environmentalism: it is an attempt to apply the “invisible hand” to ecological issues. This is precisely what I meant when I said, above, that “the polluters were led by Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand,’ to 54

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

substitute clean burning, but more expensive anthracite coal for the cheaper and dirty burning sulphur coal previously in use.” I think this “make(s) little sense to (you) now” because it is so new and startling to you. But a bit of reflection, I think, will convince you of its truth. If you were a manufacturer, or a railroad owner, and wanted to maximize profits, under which regime do you think you would give more consideration to the environment (e.g., refrain from trespassing your sparks or smoke particles onto the property of other people)? Under the legal code that existed in the early part of the 19th century, wherein if you engaged in this outrage you would very likely be subjected severe penalties (made to pay damages to your victims, and issued an injunction to cease and desist from your anti social behaviour which, if ignored, would land you in the pokey)? Or, under the auspices of the regime of law that held sway from the latter part of the 19th century, until the mid to latter part of the 20th century, in which you could far more easily pollute with impunity? Does this mean that in the earlier period every polluter was dealt with, harshly, by the forces of law and order? Not at all. Nor does this imply that in the later epoch all those who spewed forth crap into the air and water were able to get away with these despicable acts? Of course not. I was careful to say that there was only a tendency in this regard. I did state, “Given that the pollution problem was not perfectly solved....” Thus, your historical examples, while illuminating, are somewhat beside the point. My position “holds water” despite your mention of Dickens, coal from Newcastle, Ben Franklin, and several British cases. My focus was on the U.S. I think you are required to disprove my claim that there was a preponderance of lawfulness in the earlier period, such that the “invisible hand” functioned reasonably well then, but that this legal regime was much less respected in the later period. My claim is buttressed mainly by Horwitz (1977) and Rothbard (1982). I am no historian, much less a legal historian. Horwitz and Rothbard are (well, the latter is an expert in pretty much everything pertaining to the humane sciences). I have to rely on someone in this regard. If you want to undermine the free market analysis of air pollution, you are obliged, I think, to counter the claim of these publications that there was a sea change in the law of nuisance between these two epochs. Yet, at least so far, you have made no effort in that direction. You will undoubtedly be tempted to react to the above by saying something along the lines of, “Why should I assume the role of a profit making large scale business, let alone one that wants to maximize them? They are all evil. They are the cause of air pollution.” Please do not give into this temptation. I ask this for two reasons. First, it is irrelevant to my main point: that a sharp (but by no means total) disconnect in the legal regime during the progressive period of the late 19th century was largely responsible for our air pollution problems. If you want to refute that point of mine, I maintain that you have to offer evidence that there was no such change in the findings of the courts. Second, profits are not at all the bogey man you make them out to be. Permit me now to comment on several other points of contention between us, in an attempt to promote a greater understanding between us. I did not at all say that “regulatory laws like the Clean Air Act cause corporations to pollute.” Well, at least I didn’t mean to say any such thing. Yes, these laws take 55

CHAPTER 3

credit for an undoubted improvement in the cleanliness of the air we now enjoy, but the problem was caused, initially, not by the marketplace; instead, it was created by the governmental judiciary during the progressive period. I did indeed mention Holman v. Athens Empire Laundry Co. (1919). This is not a “1919 law.” Rather, it is judicial finding of that year. It is a very important court decision. It perfectly exemplifies what I am trying to say. When air pollution is not “actionable,” this means that it is not against the law. Suppose man A rapes woman B. The police arrest A and drag him to court. If rape is not “actionable,” this means that the judge will set A free, even in the face of proof that this dastardly act took place; B would have had no protection from the legal system, none at all. Now, if rape were legal, I don’t imagine that every man would continually rape every woman. The overwhelming majority of men are far more decent than that, the allegations of some fanatical feminists to the contrary notwithstanding. But, surely, there would be more rapes under such a legal regime than at present; probably, many, many more. It is the same with air pollution. If it is contrary to law, and judges mete out severe penalties to those who spew forth their debris upon all and sundry, we will certainly have fewer trespassing smoke and soot particles wending their way all over the place; in all probability, there will be much less pollution. If, on the other hand, factories are given carte blanche to engage in this activity (pollution is not “actionable” as in the 1919 judicial finding I cited), then there will be more of it, much more, especially if the perpetrators can earn extra profits thereby, and drive into bankruptcy all who keep the waste products of their manufacturing to themselves. This has nothing at all to do with “other motivations, presumably free market demand and supply laws,” stopping pollution. As it happens, there is no such thing as a “free market demand and supply law…” The law of supply and demand works independently of the free market in any case; yes, it functions in a regime of economic freedom, but this is true under economic interventionism, too, such as in the case of minimum wages or rent control. What motivates manufacturers to “cease and desist from violating the property rights of environmental victims” are laws prohibiting them from doing so, and judges who enforce these laws; that is, make these uninvited border crossings “actionable.” This 1919 case is the veritable “smoking gun” (so to speak) of the Rothbard and Horwitz analysis of pollution in the U.S. It is of crucial importance. I fear it is somewhat of a misreading of my viewpoint to mention “a business (that) curtailed or prevented pollution on its own, without pressure … from laws.” It must be a rare case indeed where a manufacturer did so, especially, given what I say above, regarding the “position of a libertarian, or ‘green’ railroad, or factory.” Of course you can easily “cite fifty (examples) where it required such pressure.” That is exactly what I am saying. Perhaps, then, our views are not as far apart as might be thought from a superficial reading of what has transpired so far. We both agree, do we not, that laws against pollution, and judges who back them up, are the sine qua non, of attaining clean air? I further maintain, supported by Horwitz and Rothbard, that these laws were at least approximately in operation in the period 1830–1840 and that the rug was pulled out from this legal regime during the later 56

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

progressive period. Were there any instances of the law against pollution being upheld in the later period? Of course there were. But as the Holman case of 1919 shows, sometimes this law was totally disregarded. You are quite right in pointing out the many suits where proper law was upheld in the 1880s and thereafter. But, it cannot be denied that this was less so in the later time period. By the way, the progressive period is usually calculated as from about the 1880s to the 1920s, so your cite of a “recent Ohio decision” (Hunt, 2010) comes a bit late. If fear this minor error on your part was due to my initial lack of clarity. Hopefully, I am now making up for that lacunae. I do not aver that later cases “hinge on the 1919 case (I) cited,” merely that this was one very important illustration of my point. A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE?

I maintain that there is a world of difference between the two different types of corporations I mentioned, and I respect your arguments to the contrary. But, I will not respond to them in this chapter, as a discussion of them would take us too far afield, in my opinion, from its subject, the environment. Why, then, did I mention them at all? I think it is because you started in on this first, in your initial position statement, where you castigated “corporate profit.” I certainly agree with you that this is an important topic, and will be happy to discuss it with you in our chapter on economics. However, I am also of the opinion that the concept of profit is germane to the subject of this chapter (otherwise I wouldn’t have raised the invisible hand idea), and will continue to try to convince you of the benefits of the profit and loss system for ecological considerations. BUFFALOS AND BARNYARDS

Let us talk about profit. I know this will at least initially be uncomfortable for many of our readers, but, please, bear with me. If you and they want to become fully acquainted with free market environmentalism, a better explication of my understanding of it is important. Profit is ubiquitous. It is involved in every act we undertake. Let me choose a rather mundane example for illustration purposes. You brush your teeth in the morning, you profiteer, you. That is, you make the following sort of monetary cost benefit calculation (you despicable creature, you): if I brush my teeth, my gains are a cleaner mouth, a more pleasant appearance and a lower risk of cavities. On the other hand, my time is worth, oh, $100 per hour, to pick a round figure. Teeth brushing will take 5 minutes, so it will cost me one twelfth of that, or, about $8.25. I’ll use up $.10 worth of toothpaste, and the wear and tear on my toothbrush will add up to another $.05, for a grand total of $8.40. Well, should I or shouldn’t I brush my teeth? It all depends upon whether the costs or benefits are higher. Suppose you calculate that your benefits from cleaning your fangs are equal to $10.00. Then, you will brush your teeth, because you will earn a profit! of $10.00 – $8.40 = $1.60. (Are you disgusted with yourself yet?). On the other hand, if there is a fire in your house, you’re not going to brush your teeth, at least not at that moment. Your calculations will change. The costs of 57

CHAPTER 3

staying by your sink and brushing will be very much higher: burns, failure to save your loved ones, possible death. Then, while the benefits of teeth brushing still remain at $10.00, the costs will have risen, say, to $100,000. So, if you stay and brush your teeth in the face of a fire, you will not make a profit; rather, you will suffer a loss, of $10 - $100,000 - $99,990. Not only are you an evil profit seeker, you are, even more egregiously, a profit maximizer. (I hate to say this, Four Arrows, but I am now filled with loathing for you ☺). Let’s get back to an ordinary no-house-on-fire day. We have said that you brush your teeth for 5 minutes. Why 5 minutes? Well, the first minute you really get a lot of crap out of your mouth; it is all over the place (as you can appreciate, I’m putting a bit of myself into this). You hit the really bad spots first. In the second minute, your productivity has fallen a bit in this regard, but it is still up there. Ditto for the third and fourth minutes; as time goes one, you are hitting seriously diminishing returns. You still continue, because the benefits outweigh the costs, and profit is rolling in every minute, but it is decreasing, assuming equal costs per minute but declining benefits. In your fifth minute, the profits are getting very small; with each second, they decrease. You stop at the 5 minute mark because you have exploited all the profits that are to be had out of this exercise. You will not go to six minutes, because the benefits you derive from this sixth minute will be less than the assumed constant costs. Heck, you will not continue for one second past that 5 minute mark, lest you not maximize your profits. Do you make this calculation on a conscious basis? Of course not. But, how else are we to explain your willingness to brush your teeth for precisely 5 minutes (or however long you do this for) and not one second more or less? We have only touched the very tip of the iceberg with this example. As I have said, profit (and loss) considerations are ubiquitous. They encompass all aspects of your life. You buy a newspaper for $1.00. You value it at more than that amount, otherwise you would not have purchased it (you may throw it away immediately after you have purchased it, not wanting it at all; your desire was only to impress someone with the fact that you can read; but there is necessarily something about that newspaper that you valued at more than $1.00). Your profit is the difference to you between the value you placed upon that periodical, and the monetary cost to you. If you value it at $1.50, and it costs you $1.00, then you have made a cool $.50 profit on this deal. The vendor, too, earns a profit at your “expense.” He valued that one newspaper at a very low rate. If he didn’t sell it to you, he might have had to dispose of it in the garbage, and that would have cost him something, say, $.15. So he actually earns a profit of the $1.00 you pay for it, plus the $.15 he thereby saves, for a grand total of $1.15. One way to say this is that you both exploited each other. But, this is silly. Rather, a correct analysis is that you both benefited (in the ex ante sense of anticipations) from this cooperative act with each other. Every time a commercial interaction takes place there is mutual profit (or loss, ex post). You hire me to wash your car for $20. You value a clean car at $25. So you earn a profit of $5. I place a value on my labor of $12. So I profit from this deal by $8. All the free market is, is the concatenation of all such trades, purchases, sales, rentals, investments. They are all profitable in precisely the sense in which teeth-brushing or newspaper sales are. 58

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

There are two and only two human motivations: monetary and psychic profit. All others fall into these two categories. We have already discussed the former. What of the latter? Are all costs and benefits merely and strictly monetary? Certainly not. In the previous example we have seen that the clean taste in your mouth, your future health, the safety of those who live in your house, are all incorporated into your economic calculation. The preeminent type of non monetary profit, psychic, is benevolence (and, for nasty people, malevolence). We contribute to charity, because we profit thereby. We get more utility out of a dollar of ours in the hands of, say, a poor or needy person, than in our own wallets. The difference to us between those two values is our psychic profit. Now let us apply what we have so far said about profit to environmental issues. If it is important to save endangered species (I won’t go into why; I am sure you agree with me on this), then it behooves us to mobilize all human motivations to this end, not just some of them. And that means, certainly, not only psychic profits, but monetary ones, too. Hence, “barnyards” for elephants, rhinos, tigers, and other such creatures. If we want to save them, it is not enough to harness compassion, only, to this end. It is simply too week a reed, alone, to rely upon. We should want also to unleash, yes, capitalists, to meet this challenge, whose economic prosperity depends, intimately, upon to well-being of these animals. So, yes, barnyards. Elephants, rhinos and tigers can be big money makers, if their owners have an incentive to profit from them. Right now, in all too many places, poachers kill elephants just for their tusks, allowing the valuable meat and skin to rot in the jungle. Pregnant rhinos are slaughtered for their valuable horns, and young female tigers for their by-products. No owner of these resources (I use this word advisedly, knowing it will raise your hackles, but, I am asking you to look at this matter through the eyes of a profit maximizer of the monetary sort), would allow any such thing, unless the client paid real big bucks. I think the cow and buffalo example is very telling. These are similar types of animals, one in a barnyard, the other roaming free. One never came within a million miles of extinction, the other within a hair’s breath. Does this not tell you something, and something important? What are your reservations about this sort of thing? You think it is “vulgar” to “place monetary considerations ahead of all others.” First of all, this is not typically true. Even the capitalist pig values a big teak desk, a thick rug in his office, pretty secretaries and other non monetary values. But suppose it were true most or all of the time; this still constitutes a distraction from the point at issue: do you or do you not want to save these species, even if “vulgarity” is part of the cost? As for me, I say, vulgarity, schmulgarity; I don’t give a tinker’s damn about any such superficial consideration. I just want to preserve those species. And, I am sure you will agree with me that vulgarity is a small price to pay for preservation of these valuable animals. You maintain that I ignore the costs of the disappearance to the Indians. Not at all. No one can talk about everything of interest in every sentence, paragraph, or even section of a chapter, let alone an entire book. Of course, this was costly to the Indians, and to others, too. My focus was not on which people were hurt by the anti capitalist, non barnyardization, of the buffalo, that lead to their almost entire disappearance. 59

CHAPTER 3

Rather, I was trying get at the cause of that sad fact. I mentioned cost in the economists’ sense of alternative costs to try to explain why it is that the cow survived, easily, while the buffalo came close to extinction. I was trying to get into the head of the person who could shoot either one of them, through economic analysis. Let me now reiterate the point I was trying to make; perhaps I was not clear enough. The potential cow shooter faced a significantly high cost: the loss of having that bovine around tomorrow, which would have inevitably occurred had he not slaughtered it today, since he owned it. The potential buffalo killer faced no such cost; indeed, his alternative cost was pretty much zero. That is, if he refrained from shooting this particular buffalo, he would not have suffered its loss on the morrow, since it would have run away, far away, and he wouldn’t have had it anyway. So, why not shoot it today, since the cost of doing so is exceedingly low. Downward sloping demand, and all that. I had taken it for granted that we would agree that the near disappearance of the buffalo would be a great cost to the Indians (here, I am using the word “cost” in a different sense, as a loss). But, since you query me here, I will be more explicit. Yes, non ownership, non private property rights, non barnyardization for the buffalo, harmed the Indians. It was a great cost to them. Their economic welfare plummeted greatly as a result. I fully agree with you on this, and thank you for helping me better make this distinction. You then mention a whole host of considerations which I see as somewhat irrelevant to my point that private property rights and free enterprise, and nothing else, is the solution to species extinction: “the intentional policy of the U.S. government to destroy the Indian way of life,” “The government provided free ammunition for people to kill the animals,” “the 1830 Indian Removal Act,” “President Grant.” None of this is at all pertinent to my (well, not really “my” but you know what I mean) thesis. Consider those bullets that the government gave out to people to enable them to slaughter the buffalo; they could have used them for an entirely different purpose: to shoot cows. But, they did not. Why not? Again, because bovines were privately owned, and buffalo were not. You object to “putting all creatures into some sort of zoo as a way to save them” on the ground that this will “devalue that which cannot be directly tied to money, and the unfettered, unregulated pursuit of it.” Why denigrate zoos, as in “some sort of zoo?” Again, I ask, do you, or do you not, want to save these animals from extinction? If so, are you able to overcome your visceral repugnance for zoos? I ask that you consider doing just that. Yes, I had initially mentioned “barnyards,” but I am just as ready to accept zoos. My error was in thinking of the slaughter of cows; hence “barnyards. But, elephants, rhinos, tigers, etc., have more value than only their body parts. For example, safaris (in these gigantic “zoos”); big game hunters are willing to pay thousands of dollars (in despised money that will enable the capitalist to maintain his equally reviled profits) to shoot these creatures. Paradoxically, that is the last best hope we have for their survival. As for the “the unfettered, unregulated pursuit” of lucre, where did you get that from? Certainly, I have never said any such thing. I have a long paper trail of publications; you will not unearth anything like that in any of them. Very much to the contrary, I do indeed favor “fetters” and “regulations” in the quest for profits. To wit, the libertarian non aggression axiom: no 60

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

one may use mercantilist, statist means of attaining wealth, or steal it in any other way. Other than that, it is laissez faire all the way as far as I am concerned. You state that “History … shows that the decimation of species originated by business and industry making room for themselves at the expense of the flora and fauna. Game preserves were not set up, except as relates to a few private hunter clubs…” I beg to differ. The highest profile risks to species were buffalo in the U.S, caribou in Alaska, wolves in Wyoming and various fauna in Africa and India, places not at all known for “business and industry.” Just what “history” are you relying upon to make this statement? Please specify. You offer the view that these game preserves were set up not “by private industry, but by public entities.” You are quite correct. However, you neglect to appreciate the fact that private capitalist profit seekers were prohibited by law from doing any such thing. It is a bit harsh to denigrate entrepreneurs for not doing something for which they could be jailed. Until very recently, it was illegal to set up a ranch or farm for these exotic animals. You ask if the black market is the free market. Yes, certainly, it is. The black market was in part responsible for enabling the Soviet Union to persist in its evil and inefficient socialist practices for as long as it did. But, to characterize what the poachers did, first, illegally slaughter animals and then sell them against the law, as the operation of the “free market,” is highly problematic. For free enterprise to really be operational in this domain, elephants, rhinos, tigers, wolves, etc., would be able to be legally treated exactly like cows, pigs, chickens and other barnyard animals. Economic rationality (private property, profit and loss, the usual commercial practices) would operate in the former case, as it now does in the latter. Yes, of course, ivory, rhino powder, tiger testicles, etc., would be sold in the open and legal market. This would be the last best hope for the survival of these endangered species, just as is the meat of the barnyard inhabitants the ticket to their own continuation. Their high value would save them from extinction; under such institutional arrangements they would not be a target for poachers. To be absolutely clear on this, I do not favor the present system where poachers indiscriminately kill endangered species. Yes, they are part of the black market, and, I do indeed favor the black market vis a vis pure socialism, but, even more, far more, do I argue in behalf of pure laissez faire capitalism, where no black market is needed. Let me explain this rather complicated point by analogy. In my view, we ought to have a completely free market in addictive drugs. There should be no laws against them (except for children). At present, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, are prohibited (in virtually all jurisdictions). Do I support the black market? Yes, I do. These criminals are doing nothing incompatible with libertarian law by supplying these products to willing buyers (I now abstract from the fact that drug dealers often kill innocent people.) But, far more than arguing in behalf of the role these denizens of the black market play at present, I defend the complete legalization of all drugs, so that a black market would not be needed. I adopt the same position with regard to black market poachers. Yes, they do harm, they kill endangered species. However the fault is animal socialism. Black market drug dealers also hurt people. They provide impure products (the equivalent of bathtub gin during the 61

CHAPTER 3

prohibition of alcohol). But, again, the underlying blame is properly to be laid at the door of outlawing drugs. Black marketers in the Soviet Union were no angels either. But the culpability belongs, properly, to Communism, not them. Without drug outlawry, the economic system of the U.S.S.R., bans on private ownership of exotic species, there would be no black markets in any of these cases. That is the system I advocate. You speak positively about these endangered species being “allowed … to roam in their natural habitat as opposed to zoos or ‘barnyards.’” I am not comfortable with your use of scare quotes for the word “barnyards.” Barnyards are perfectly legitimate places. They have the effect (their owners do not necessarily have the intention – remember the invisible hand) of keeping these animals alive, and thus providing value for human beings. The difficulty with allowing these creatures “to roam in their natural habitat” is that to do so is to sound their death knell. This sort of “animal freedom,” precludes their commercialization. If they can travel wherever they please, businesses cannot earn profits from protecting them, breeding them, and, yes, of course, slaughtering them. Why is it so difficult to get across the point to many people that cows, sheep, turkeys, are treated in precisely this manner, and there is no danger whatsoever of their extinction? Of course, the barnyards will have to be bigger, and the fences stronger, for elephants and lions than for ducks and geese. With the prices of ivory, rhino horns, etc., this can be done on a profitable basis. Yes, of course, “everything on Earth should exist solely for human exploitation under the religion of free market capitalism (emphasis added).” But, why do you characterize advocacy of what amounts in my opinion to no more and no less than justice, a “religion?” Would you feel comfortable if I engaged in name calling, and referred to your SEEJ as a “religion?” I somehow think not. Maybe I am too sensitive about this, but my school of economics, Austrianism, is often called “cultish” and dismissed as a mere exercise in religion, not science. I am sure you did not mean to insult me, but I would be happier if you dropped this sort of charge. What other reason do the fauna and flora of our planet exist, other than for “human exploitation?” That is, in my view, the earth and its accoutrements exist solely for our sakes, and for no other reason. They do not at all have intrinsic value, only instrumental value, as a means toward our ends. As I hope I have demonstrated to you, there really is no incompatibility between benefits for human beings, and survival of other species. That is, if we adopt laissez faire capitalism and free enterprise, where private enterprise and the profit and loss system mitigate against extinctions, via barnyards. There is one institution not yet mentioned by either of us: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the opinion of this organization, the best (only?) way to save these endangered animals is to ban trade in them. CITES maintains that if poachers cannot sell the tusks they gather to foreigners, they will have less of a financial incentive to engage in this practice in the first place. Well, true. But it is difficult to stop smugglers, as those charged with fighting the war on drugs have long known. Another, a better, way to eliminate this motive is of course privatization. 62

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

I fear I do not see, yet, much overlap in our positions on ecology. Perhaps this will change, Four Arrows, in the further give and take of our discussions. However, I take comfort from the fact that we both oppose “state/private industry partnerships”; maybe we can solidify our mutual opposition to such fascism in our chapter on economics. THE OCEANS

Before responding to your very insightful challenges to ocean ownership (and I thank you profusely for taking me seriously on this; there are many, many, many who would not do me the honor of doing so; this is but one of the many, many, many reasons I enjoy interacting with you on these issues), let me review my position on this. I am trying to do my best to apply Adam Smith’s notion of the “invisible hand” to an arena neither he, nor most other scholars, contemplated. My thought is that with present common ownership, based on the thinking that pervades the United Nations’ motto, “the sea is the common heritage of all of mankind,” we will be continued to be victimized by the tragedy of the commons. It is only under a fully privatized ocean (seas, rivers, lakes, streams, etc.,) that we can escape this scourge. It is simply in no one’s individual interest that fish, whales and other such crops be depleted. Yet, each individual, acting on his own, has a selfish profit maximizing interest in grabbing up as much as he can, with no thought for the fact that if he does, there will likely be nothing available on the morrow. Many blame this on greed or selfishness or capitalism, or some such. But, this problem stems from non or common ownership of the oceans. The same greed or selfishness or capitalism operates with regard to most human endeavors. And, yet, as we have seen, it rears its ugly head only in the case of unowned resources such as buffalo, never privately held ones such as cattle. Rothbard (1956) puts the case beautifully: Private individuals and firms should definitely be able to own parts of the sea for fishing purposes. The present communism in the sea has led, inevitably, to progressive extermination of the fisheries, since it is to everyone’s interest to grab as many fish as he can before the other fellow does, and to no one’s interest to preserve the fishery resource. The problem would be solved if, on the first-ownership-to-first-user principle, parts of the sea could be owned by private enterprise. With this attempt to better explain my position, as you have asked me to do, I now turn to a consideration of your reservations about my thesis. You start off with the claim that under private ocean ownership “just like cattle rustling or corporate take-overs or invasion of other lands, people will encroach into territories other than their own to make a better profit, especially after they have destroyed their own place of business.” You ask me: “Do you really believe that a fishing company that owns a section will hire security to monitor such large sections of water? Will this really solve anything?” There are more areas of disagreement between us here than you can shake a stick at, but I will try to respond to them all. 63

CHAPTER 3

First of all, and perhaps most important, I have misgivings about the way you use the word “profit” here. Well, yes, I suppose, if I steal your car and drive away with it, there is a sense in which I have profited from my act (assuming I can get away with it, and have no moral scruples about such an act.) But, this is not at all the sense in which this word is used in the libertarian philosophy. Here, remember, the be all and end all is the non aggression axiom. We have agreed, have we not, that under your sense of social justice, and mine of plain old ordinary justice, that such acts would be strictly forbidden. Certainly, Smith’s invisible hand of earning profits and helping others does not contemplate this sort of use of that word. Second, I puzzled by your linkage of these three things: “cattle rustling, … corporate take-overs, …. invasion of other lands.” The first and third are totally incompatible with the free enterprise ethic. They are paradigmatic violations of the non aggression principle of libertarianism. The second is completely compatible with this type of morality. Wait a minute, Four Arrows, you sort of do have a point; I now, belatedly, see it. Let me try to clarify. I suppose there are really two ways to take over a corporation. One is through violence, as when the Godfather, a la the movie of that same name, tells a corporate president, “I will either have your signature on that contract selling me your entire corporation for $1, or your brains will be on it.” This type of corporate take-over fully deserves to be linked with the other two instances of the threat or initiation of violence. But, this is very far removed from the usual commercial corporate take-over. When Michael Milken took over a corporation, he did not do this at gun-point. Rather, he merely purchased sufficient shares in it to elect a new board of directors. And how did he get these shares? Through voluntary agreements with their owners. So, when you linked “cattle rustling, … corporate take-overs, …. invasions,” if you had criminal take overs in mind, then I see and agree with your point. But, if you meant ordinary commercial interactions, where one board of directors supplants another, then I must respectfully disagree with you. I guess what I am saying is that there can be no such thing as a “hostile” takeover in the free market system. Third, I do not think it is a legitimate argument against private property to say that theft of service or trespass could occur (“people will encroach into territories other than their own”). Suppose that t shirts are now owned in common. No one owns his own t shirt. Instead, we all initially take these shirts from a common pool. After we have worn them, we stick them in the common washing machine and dryer, and pluck out afterwards our t shirt for the day. However, under this system, we are all victimized by the tragedy of the commons. People just don’t take good care of their t shirts, in the knowledge that if they misuse the one they are wearing, they can always get another one out of the common pool. But, when we all do that, the quality of all our t shirts deteriorates. So, we now decide to privatize t shirts. But, there is an objection: if we each own our own t shirts, there will be, horrors, theft! People will steal each others’ t shirts. Would you consider this a valid argument against t shirt privatization? I sincerely hope not. Yes, of course, there is theft in the world. But, when these things are criminalized, the rate decreases, markedly. If not, we would hardly have a civilization. Yes, the jails are now full of criminals. But, a large portion of them are there for victimless crimes, incarcerated not for 64

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

real rights violations such as theft, trespass, murder, rape; rather, for things they have every right to do: pornography, prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc. No, only a very small proportion of people are real criminals, so this objection can hardly be very compelling. If it were valid, it would prove too much, far too much. For there is criminal behavior with regard to virtually everything. Therefore, according to this perspective, private property should be banned entirely. Fourth, “Do you really believe that a fishing company that owns a section will hire security to monitor such large sections of water?” As I see things, either they will hire security, or they will do it themselves. Let us go back in history to the days before barbed wire. How did cattlemen keep track of who owned which cow? By branding, of course. (Was there cattle rustling? Sure, there was; but, in them thar days, they would hang rustlers, and this would put a severe damper on this practice.) We now have the technology to “brand” fish and whales, by sticking electronic monitoring devices into them. But, we can do better, far better. We can also utilize the modern aquatic equivalent of barbed wire. That is, electronic fences, to keep these fishies where we want them, not where they want to go (salmon are a complication, of course.) Let us have an end to “fish freedom.” Under capitalism, we will move from the hunting stage in the oceans, to farming. When we did so on the land, we moved from a species of a pitiful few humans, hiding in caves or in trees, to modern, civilized man. This is but one example of how far behind we are on three quarters of the earth’s surface, due to the lack of private property thereon and therein. Fifth, “Will this really solve anything?” You bet your boots it will solve something. To wit, it will cure the problem of over fishing and over whaling. It will also deal with issues such as oil spills. If I owned a patch of ocean, I would charge far more to owners of old singled hulled leaky ships than modern air tight double hulled ones. If a breakup of an oil tanker occurred in my area, not only would it be disastrous for my own fish, whales, etc., but I would be liable to my neighbors, whether land or ocean owners, for this gunk if it spread onto their property (that is, under the 1830s type of law I favor). It would also address, in the same manner and in the same way, the issue of “plastic debris in our oceans (such as Nestle water bottles).” And this certainly includes “the North Pacific Gyre’s plastic garbage patch and the four others like it around the world…” Nestle, of course, is not responsible for the use its customers make of its product, any more than is Smith and Wesson guilty of murders committed with its weapons. You next raise the issue of fish and shrimp farming. I support it. No, let me correct that. I am wildly in favor of it. Of course, I oppose fish or shrimp farms that pollute other people’s (marine) property. In equal measure, harking back to our air pollution discussion, I am also against manufacturers that send their pollutants wafting over onto other people’s property. You ask, what does it say “about the free market and short term thinking of capitalism” when “Ecuadorian shrimp farms managed to destroy most of their mangrove swamps.” I think that if these shrimp farms destroyed their own mangrove swamps, well, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. There are always business failures. Bankruptcy is part and parcel of free enterprise; you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Those who misuse resources suffer losses, and are forced through the market to exit that particular field. Hopefully, these 65

CHAPTER 3

shrimp farmers will be able to move into another industry where they can better contribute to society, by earning profits, instead of suffering losses. However, suppose these self same shrimp (or fish) farmers destroy mangrove swamps owned by others. That is a horse of entirely a different color. Those people should be subject to the full force of the law, up to and including being put in jail. Heck, they should have been stopped long before they managed to completely “destroy” someone else’s property. The victims of this water borne pollution should have access to 1830–1840 type U.S. courts that by and large upheld libertarian law against trespass. Of course these despicable polluters “can make more money faster without the extra ecological measures, do it the worst way imaginable for the environment.” That is precisely what I have been criticizing. And, the cause of this evil is judicial findings such as that 1919 Holman case. Perhaps now it will be more clear to you that we are actually on the same side of these matters. I may well have been insufficiently clear about what I am advocating. Well, I’m doing my best. I hope I have by now completely disabused you of the notion “that as long as greed and the lust for more and higher profits exists in free market capitalism, such problems will continue.” No, no, no, a thousand times no, “greed,” and “lust for … profits” have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. As I tried to make clear, you, too, are a “luster” after profits, in your teeth brushing, and indeed every other act you engage in. Right now, as you read the material in this paragraph, you are undoubtedly reacting to it, with a view to either agreeing or disagreeing with me, right? You are soon going to write your reply to it? Why? So as to garner profits, you capitalist pig, you (☺). The only reason you’ll now write, or, continue reading, even continue breathing, is that you think there is something in it for you if you do, namely, wait for it, profits. Yes, you will only continue dealing with our book at the time you read this if you think that the benefits of so doing outweigh the attendant costs. If you do not, namely, if you think you will suffer losses (negative profit), you will go off and do something else, maybe, brush your teeth, or go for a jog or a handball game. The cause of these problems is fish farmers, or manufacturers, or railroads, who are allowed with impunity to throw their crap at other people and onto their property. And why is that? Because the law allows this. You ask, must this not “at least temporarily, be regulated?” Well, I don’t know about this “temporary” business. I think that property rights should be protected permanently. And, I don’t much like that word “regulated.” It smacks too much of government interference with markets and capitalism. I want perpetrators of pollution to be jailed (subject to the qualifications specified by Rothbard, 1982) if they disobey injunctions to cease and desist from polluting, and/or fail to pay damages. But, I don’t want to get into a mere verbal dispute with you. If this is what you mean by “regulated,” then I heartily agree. You ask, “…. how can (I) use land as a positive model for how the oceans could be if they were also privatized? Do I need to cite how much forest has been destroyed worldwide? How much arable land is left? How many streams and lakes are polluted?” We have quite a few disagreements (I think they are not merely verbal, but I am getting less and less sure of that as I go on responding to you) here. Most 66

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

destruction of forest has to do with public or non ownership. Some, of course, can be traced to private sources. But, the free enterprise system is designed to give us the optimal amount of trees. In much the same way as you brush your teeth for 5 minutes, no more and no less, laissez faire capitalism will give us precisely the amount of forest coverage we need, based on the people’s choices, their time preferences, mediated through their dollar votes. (Wait, I exaggerate, somewhat; this is true only when the market is in equilibrium, which it never is, but we are always tending in that direction). I’ll more fully elaborate on all this when we get to our economics chapter, but here is a brief account. Let us suppose that the optimal amount of forests is 30% of the land (I pick this number merely for illustration purposes.) Let us suppose that 50% of the earth is now covered by trees. Then, profits will be earned by cutting down the trees. Hey, we need room for people too; for office buildings, golf courses (see below for more on this amenity), factories, homes. On the other hand, if trees account for only10% of the land, then profits can be earned by planting more of them. Those who zig when they should be zagging, or zag when they should be zigging, in either the 50% or the 10% scenario, will lose profits, make losses, and tend to be forced into bankruptcy. The invisible hand really works. Plenty of “lakes and streams” are polluted. Most, because they are unowned, and/or government refuses to uphold property rights. But, is the optimal amount of dirty lakes and streams zero? Maybe, maybe not. This can only be rationally decided thought the profit and loss system of private property, where they are all owned by people who stand to make losses if they cannot anticipate consumer demand properly in this regard. We do want some garbage dumps, do we not? Why should aqueous resources be exempt, as long as there is no leakage from them to other people’s property? You query “What real evidence do you have that privatizing water, whether forced as was tried by multinationals in Bolivia or promoted via false advertising as with many bottled water companies, is good for the ecology and for ecological justice?” My evidence for this is profit and loss considerations. If government does a poor job providing water, they stay on at the same lemonade stand forever. Think of the post office, the motor vehicle bureau, and public roads (which kill some 40,000 people on an annual basis). If a private water dispenser screws up, they are history. They are gone. (See my list of large companies that are no longer with us.) The mere existence of bottled water is exhibit “A” in the indictment of public provision. The government gives it away for free, and the people prefer to pay private firms for it? Give me a break. Needless to say, I oppose Bolivian (or any other) force, and certainly fraudulent advertising. My only point with regard to Nestles had to do with impure statist water. I relish responding to your very interesting other criticisms of my view on Nestle, but shall do so in our chapter on economics, where I think it will be more relevant. Four Arrows, the fact that you mention “corporations … that focus on the quarterly profit report to the exclusion of any authentic concern for what their product does to the environment,” shows either that you are unaware of Smith’s “invisible hand” argument, or that you reject it. If the former, please consider immersing yourself in 67

CHAPTER 3

this literature. If the latter, please explain why you reject this cornerstone of all economics. The point is, were property rights fully respected, the only way to maximize profits would be to ensure that you did not violate the environment (e.g., other people’s property.) RIVERS

Not only should oceans be privatized, but so should rivers. Let me address two issues. First, why should we want to do this, and second, how might this be done? Rivers should be turned over to the private sector in order to better facilitate commerce on them, so as to better address pollution problems, and because government ownership is irresponsible; it needlessly kills people. Some rivers are now becoming so crowded that a way must be found to ration this scarce resource amongst those competing for them, where the demand is greater than the supply. Privatization would allow the price system to take on this task; it would do so as it does for butter, beer, bicycles and bologna. But what of the objection that if this were done, the poor would not be able to fairly compete for river usage? The answer to this is that the poor, like everyone else, benefit from market prices. No one is seriously objecting to prices determining the distribution of butter, beer, bicycles and bologna. Is it seriously contended that the impecunious would be better off if the state organized these industries? If so, this furnishes evidence, only, that they have not yet learned the lesson from the debacle of the Soviet economy. River ownership would also reduce pollution. If farmers pollute the Acme river (and/of, if that river runs rampant over their acreage), or, if a manufacturer releases hot water into a stream which heats it up to the detriment of fish, swimmers, etc., this corporation would haul them into (an 1830s type of) court, unless of course, the farmers, and manufacturers were able to pay more for their uses than competitors, and ACME agreed to have them as customers. In either case, the river would then be used rationally. As to needless deaths from public ownership, a dramatic case in point concerns the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the aftermath of hurricane Katrina (Anderson, 2005; Anderson and Kjar, 2008; Block, 2006B; Block and Rockwell, 2007; Carden, 2008; ChamleeWright and Rothschild, 2007; Chamlee-Wright, 2008; Cowen, 2006; Culpepper and Block, 2008; D’Amico, 2008; Dirmeyer, 2008; Lora, 2006; McGee, 2008; Murphy, 2005; Raskin, Kjar and Rahm, 2008; Stringham and Snow, 2008; Thornton, 1999; Vuk, 2006A, 2006B, 2008; Walker and Jackson, 2008; Westley, Murphy and Anderson, 2008; Young, 2008). FEMA announces itself on its website as “prepared, responsive and committed.” Yes, they were “prepared” to prevent private aid from being brought to New Orleans and its environs, they were “responsive” to bureaucratic orders emanating from Washington D.C. and they were “committed” to killing people. The Army Corps of Engineers brags about “building and maintaining America’s infrastructure.” Sure, tell that to the people of New Orleans, the needlessly dead, due to poorly built levies, and those who are still mourning for them. When and if libertarians ever get a chance to hold a Nuremberg trial, the leaders of these 68

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

organizations, along with leading U.S. imperialists, will find themselves in the dock. Now that we have considered reasons why we should privatize rivers, how can this best be done? In the view of Rothbard (1956): What’s the solution (to the problem of) fixing the ownership of flowing water(?)… We must concentrate first … in trying to visualize an ideal arrangement. After the ideal is known, then one can begin working toward it…. The ideal for scarce goods … is first-ownership-to-first-user. … the route to justice lies along the appropriation rather than the riparian path. Why riparian? What claim does a landowner have to any part of a stream just because his land adjoins the stream? No moral claim whatever. His riparian claim is not based on his having made use of the water; in fact, his only purpose seems to be to block anyone else from using the water, and the result is criminal waste of rivers and streams… The way to amend the appropriation method is as follows: eliminate all requirements for “beneficial” use — the term is meaningless, and can only be concretely decided on the free market; the water must be the appropriator’s absolute property, not at the sufferance of the State. Hence, he must be free to sell his right to the water to anyone else for any purpose, or to stop using it altogether. If he fails either to use his property right or sell it, the inference is that it is not worth using on the market. At any rate, the decision must be the property owner’s — the appropriator’s. How to establish the absolute appropriation method … whether with or without compensation to the present riparian owners — is something that must be settled. If downstream owners want to avoid pollution, there is one simple way they can do so, under the appropriation method: buy the stream together — as a corporation, perhaps — from the first appropriators, and then put it to non-polluting uses, or keep it “fallow” altogether. That is one way to proceed. The key element in here is that those who have been using the river, are the rightful owners. In Rothbard’s view, this is not the land owners on either side of this body of water, and I think this is correct. In a lake, particularly a small one, however, it might well be that the owners of the land abutting this body of water are the most likely users of it, and, hence, the rightful owners. With regard to highway privatization (Block, 2009), it is far easier to determine the users with property abutting this facility, than those who live elsewhere. Modifications of the Rothbard rule might be justified in these other venues. If we could adopt a God’s eye perspective, then we would know, unerringly, who are the legitimate owners. In the real world, we have to scrape along as best we can on this question. GANDHI AND MATERIALISM

As far as I am concerned, the world would be a far better place if instead of rap and country music, people listened to Bach and Mozart; played handball instead of 69

CHAPTER 3

football; donated more money for research and development on space exploration and curing cancer, MS and AIDS (if the government hadn’t wasted a significant part of the GDP every year, we might have already attained these goals) and less on beer and cigarettes. Other pet peeves of mine: more students should major in economics, and fewer in sociology; we should arrange matters so that rainfall occurs only between 2am and 4am (if the government hadn’t wasted a significant part of the GDP every year, this might already be a reality); everyone should be nicer to everyone else. Consider that list of my ‘druthers. There are two ways that I can entertain them. One, as a wish list: wouldn’t it be nice if matters were such that I was more, or better yet, fully, satisfied with regard to all of these elements. Two, I hereby advocate that force be used to these ends; that people be compelled to tune in baroque music, play handball, and be prohibited from doing all these other things on the “bad” side of my compilation. I admit to the first, and regard the second as unjust. Four Arrows, you, too, have a list of ‘druthers. I’ll now compile at least part of it for you; I’ll include only those elements pertaining to the subject of this chapter. I base this on our telephone calls, what you have so far contributed to this chapter and our letters to each other during the process of collaborating on this book. Here goes: People shouldn’t engage in wasteful practices. For example, we should not consume more than we need in extreme ways. Using more water than is ecological (everything from home use to golf courses and beyond shouldn’t occur). “…material goods and services have become valued excessively.” We should “simplify…, reducing the consumption of material goods.” If I have misinterpreted your views on any of these goals, I write under correction. You, also, Four Arrows, can mean these claims in one of the two ways I mention above. If the first, then this is merely a “wish list” of yours you would like to see implemented. In this case, all I can say is “good luck,” and that your desires are rather different than mine. However, if you mean it in the second interpretation I offer above, then you and I must part company. If you had the power, and you forced people to live in the manner specified by these ‘druthers of yours, I would regard such an action as highly unjust; I would think of you as a dictator. In contrast, there are things for which I do advocate the use of compulsion, and I imagine you join me on these. People should be prohibited from engaging in them, and if they ignore this order of mine, severe physical sanctions (brute force) ought to be imposed upon them. For instance, crimes such as murder, rape, theft, trespass, assault and battery, pollution (subject to the qualifications mentioned in Rothbard, 1982), fraud, kidnapping, arson, enslavement, etc., ought to be stopped cold in their tracks. So, which is it, Four Arrows? I would be mightily interested in your answer to this question. Should wastrels, golfers, users of excessive amounts of water, other resources, etc., be locked up, or, are they merely people you dislike, but would allow to continue in this vein, even had you the power to stop them by force? You ask, “Would you say that overconsumption of hamburgers … have nothing to do with an ‘overly materialistic’ culture?” Answer is, well, I suppose, that based on your tastes, this is true. But not on mine. 70

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

An interesting hamburger controversy is now taking place in Canada (Henheffer, 2010): Tofino, B.C., is a tiny surfer town full of independent coffee shops, greasy spoons and eco-clothing boutiques, and its residents want to keep it that way. So, last week, the town council unanimously passed a motion asking city staff to come up with a way to keep large franchises – like Starbucks, WalMart and McDonald’s – out. “We want to be reflective of the environment in which we live, which is wild, untamed and thus different,” says Maureen Fraser, owner of the Common Loaf, a local bakery and hippie hangout. “There’s no sense of escape if you find the golden arches.” Four Arrows, how do you regard this attempt on the part of Tofino to ban by law these “overly materialistic” franchisers? That is, if they persist in buying some land, setting up shop, etc., throwing them in jail for such actions? My view is clear. This is a despicable violation of rights. It is simply unjust to prohibit these companies from offering burgers for sale. If Miss Fraser is correct, no one will purchase any, and the newly open fast food emporiums will have to go bankrupt, since they cannot satisfy the types of hippie demand for food prevalent in that small town. But, isn’t it the right of McDonalds and these others to test out Miss Fraser’s theory? I don’t yet know about your answer to this question, but there is no doubt that many opponents of libertarianism do look upon wastrels (of the hamburger variety or not) as criminals. You state that “materialism” and “over consumption” have been brought about “under the influence of Western and especially American capitalism,” that “material goods and services have become valued excessively.” You point to the “profit motive and the ability of large amounts of money to inspire people to buy more and more.” You further ask: “Overconsumption by one group can lead to underconsumption by another in ways that are doing violence to the have-nots. Such violence, as you recall, is an SEEJ problem. Do you disagree with this idea?” This bodes ill for my theory that you are in accord with me in that these acts are merely unwise, or distasteful, but not crimes. I do agree with you that justice is at stake here, but disagree with you that “materialists,” “over consumers,” wastrels, etc., have perpetrated a crime on those “have-nots” who suffer from “underconsumption,” and therefore ought to be stopped through the use of violence. As I interpret you, Four Arrows, you are claiming that the rich are rich because the poor are poor. Or, that there is a fixed pie “out there,” and if some get more of it, others must necessarily have less of it. In economics, this is called a “zero sum game,” and the capitalist system is indeed often blamed for this sort of thing. However, I can’t see my way clear to accepting the validity of this charge. Williams (2010), explains: Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference – strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer. Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue 71

CHAPTER 3

jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans. When’s the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans? It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another. It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it’s a zero-sum game. One person’s gain is of necessity another person’s loss. That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose. As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict. Take the issue of prayers in school as an example. I think that everyone, except a maniacal tyrant, would agree that a parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, a parent has a right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. Conflict arises because schools are government owned. That means it is a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent, in order to get what he wants, would have to muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. If education were only government financed, as opposed to being government financed and produced, say through education vouchers, the conflict would be reduced. Both parents could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice and instead of being enemies, they could be friends. The zero sum criticism of markets, in my opinion, overlooks the fact that the capitalist system is productive. Under its aegis, the pie actually increases. So, it is not necessarily true that the rich gain their wealth at the expense of the poor. In all honest dealings, both parties to a commercial interaction – rich and poor, male and female, employer and employee, buyer and seller – gain. It is only under crony capitalism (note the example of Miss Fraser, hamburger mercantilist) that this is not true. That is why I lay such great emphasis on “good” corporations vis a vis “bad” ones. Let us review how one can become rich under free enterprise. Consider a worker. He earns $100 per day. He spends only $80 during that time. He saves the rest. Eventually it amounts to $10,000. He quits his job, and sets out on his own account. He buys fruit baskets at $10, and sells them for $12. Does he “exploit” the purchasers of these items? Of course not. They are perfectly willing to buy from him, he 72

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

doesn’t not force them to do so. They value what they buy from this new entrepreneur at more than the purchase price of $12, so they, too, earn a profit. Eventually our man does so well, he expands his business. He buys some land, and hires some workers. Since there these are voluntary transactions, we may deduce there was mutual gain (always in the ex ante sense, and, usually, in the ex post as well) in them too. This guy’s firm gets bigger and bigger. Eventually, he is filthy rich. Did he impoverish anyone else at any step in this process? No. He operated entirely within what Oppenheimer (1914) calls the “economic means.” In sharp contrast, very sharp contrast indeed, there is an entirely different kind of businessman. He obtains his start up capital from the government. He successfully lobbies for more subsidies from that source, and for special laws handcuffing his competitors; again see the case of Miss Fraser, of anti McDonald’s fame. (A particularly egregious example of this sort of thing is President Lynden Baines Johnson; he worked all his life in politics, at relatively modest salaries; and yet he retired a fabulously wealthy man, based on government largesse that flowed to him, thanks to his direction). He becomes wealthy, not by enriching all of his customers, but, rather, by forcing them to pay him via the government tax-subsidy system what they were unwilling to offer him, directly, for his wares. In this case, your concern: “Overconsumption by one group can lead to underconsumption by another in ways that are doing violence to the have-nots. Such violence, as you recall, is an SEEJ problem” is entirely justified. My problem with you, Four Arrows, is that you do not sufficiently distinguish between these two very, very, very, very different type of “capitalists.” I applaud and defend the former type of businessman, and claim he is operating in a manner consistent with laissez faire capitalism, or free enterprise; he is a part of the free market system. The second, I totally condemn as a member in good standing of the state monopoly corporate capitalist model, as a perpetrator of economic fascism. I don’t know how I can better draw the absolutely crucial distinction between these different types of firms. Yes, I agree with you, there is a statistical correlation between size of firm and what Oppenheimer (1914) calls the “political means.” The bigger is a business, the more likely it is to partake of the evil type of capitalism. But there are exceptions. There is no necessary connection between size and “badness.” It is a bit like height and weight. These, too, are highly correlated with one another. But there is no necessary connection between the two of them. There are, after all, tall, thin people, and, also, short, fat ones. There are big bad corporations. I mentioned a few of them, previously. There are small evil ones, too, such as the “Common Loaf, a local bakery and hippie hangout” in Tofino, Canada. There are totally legitimate tiny firms. And, there are very big ones, too, that act in a manner fully compatible with the libertarian code. Yes, I haven’t been able, yet, to give you any examples of these that you accept. I intend to pound away at this in our chapter on economics. For the moment, I ask you to accept that there could be such an entity; that mere large size is not a per se violation of proper law. If you cannot see your way to agreeing with me on this, then let me ask you a question: what is it about (the large) size of a corporation that renders it illicit in your view, given that it does things no different 73

CHAPTER 3

than when it was small (and hence legitimate in your view?). Or does doing the same thing on a large scale amount to a difference in kind? Please explain. I am very interested in your views on this question. Let’s discuss a specific issue of so called wastage, golf courses. Just how many golf courses do you think there should be, ideally? Zero? And, is this a mere part of your wish list, your ‘druthers, or, would you use compulsion to ban them all? As for me, I adopt a totally laissez faire attitude toward these amenities. I myself do not play golf; I regard it as a sissy “sport.” But, as far as the law is concerned, it should allow people to use their own land, or land they voluntary purchase, for any non invasive purpose they wish. But, are golf courses invasive? Well, yes, sometimes. Their extensive use of water is often heavily subsidized by the sort of government water pricing policies I mention above. In such cases, the answer is not to ban golf courses; rather, it is to make them pay their full way; confront them with market prices for this liquid. But, this can only be done when water is fully privatized. What objection do you have to a golf course that pays its full way regarding its water bill, that does not allow runoff of chemicals to keep the grass green onto the property of any other person? Is it because it is so luxurious? Then, would you ban by law private jets, Rolls Royce automobiles, Stradivarius violins, diamond bracelets? A is head over heels in love with his wife, B. For him, she is a luxury, a jewel valuable beyond price (I am being poetic here). She is worth more than rubies. A wouldn’t give up B for al the law private jets, Rolls Royce automobiles, Stradivarius violins, diamond bracelets in the world. If you were rigorously logically consistent, your anathema for luxurious golf courses would lead to a prohibition of the marriage of A and B. Surely, you wouldn’t go that far. But, where is the error in my attempted reductio? You ask: “Would you say that such a demand for products, motivated by industry creating the consumer needs as much as the consumer wanting them independently, has had anything to do with deforestation?” We part company, here, in two regards. First, a high demand for wood, has nothing to do with deforestation, any more than does a high demand for milk have to do with the (non) disappearance of milk, any more than does a high demand for rap “music” have to do with the (non) disappearance of rap music. In fact, the very opposite effect follows increased demand, when there is at least a semblance of private property rights, as there are in cases such as cars, computers, coffee, and most other goods. That is, when demand for an item increases, profits in providing it rise, and entrepreneurs scurry to earn these profits (let us always remember the invisible hand). How can they do so? Why, by supplying more of the item in greater demand. True, this takes a bit more time in the case of trees. They take a long time to grow to maturity. But, planting them occurs relatively quickly. We are never in equilibrium in the real world, but we are always tending in that direction. As for the complaint about “industry creating … consumer needs” this is a criticism against the free enterprise system most famously penned by Galbraith (1958). Hayek (1961) completely and totally obliterated Galbraith on this point. Of course, industry, and other cultural leaders, create wants in us. Our desire for the music of Mozart, for example, is a completely “contrived” need. We do not come 74

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

out of the womb with a demand for this consumer particular product. Apart from “The innate wants (for) food shelter, and sex,” Hayek tells us, our entire civilization rests on this sort of thing. Are we to jettison all other desires because they were only developed in us by observation of the world around us, which includes people continually coming up with new products, and trying to convince us they will improve the quality of our lives? Industry “created” in us a desire to have computers, shoe laces, movies, cars, the list goes on. Happily for the Galbraithians, there is much less of this sort of thing going on in North Korea. SEEJ IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Yes, I certainly concede to you, Four Arrows, that it would be a good thing for universities to not only make their students aware of the truths of free market environmentalism, as I have tried to sketch them out above, but also of the many criticisms that have been launched against it. I am a firm believer in Mill’s (1859) view that students should hear both sides of all issues, so that they make up their own minds. And, as Mill says, they should hear them from advocates who really believe in them: Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. It is too bad that most college students, and, indeed, professors, are unaware of the arguments of free market environmentalism, since academia does not much welcome supporters of free enterprise on its faculty, a point I tried to make in the last chapter. I certainly do agree with you “that some discussion about the pros and cons in light of the historical record” would be very desirable. I am somewhat uncomfortable with the distinction you make between “theory” and “reality,” as in: X is true in theory, but not reality. A theory is supposed to be about reality. If it is “true” only in theory, but not in reality, then it is not true in theory either. I won’t comment on your linking me with your “Christian fundamentalist cousin.” Let me just say that many people would regard that as insulting, as I would in most other contexts, but I know you do not mean it in that way. I do not at all “think private possession of land is sacred.” I think, rather, it is both ethically justified, and economically efficacious. You say, “… both your libertarian and my Indigenous worldview also reject central government, hierarchal structures, and regulations on liberties. So in a way our ultimate goals are similar.” Apart from hierarchal structures, which I am indifferent to (if they arise out of voluntary agreement, I support them, otherwise, not) I do agree with you that there is a core 75

CHAPTER 3

of overlap between us. We both oppose initiatory violence, for example, which I regard as the pre eminent building block of all of political economy. I sometimes think we are on the same wavelength, and are only kept apart due to the very different way we understand some words (“capitalism”). But, I think, this back and forth procedure we have adopted for this collaborative book effort ought to eventually iron out mere verbal disputes. Never fear, my friend, we will eventually achieve “real disagreement,” and then, hopefully, come closer together on some issues, and, on others, agree to politely and respectfully disagree. I am also in enthusiastic agreement that our book should include at least a chapter where we “research and dialogue about the Indigenous way.” Four Arrows, we both agree that it is improper to initiate violence against innocent people, or to steal their property, invade it, trespass upon it. I claim that this logically implies acceptance of the institution of private property rights. Yet, you favour the former, but in this chapter are highly suspicious of the latter, if not downright dismissive of it. Why do I claim that property rights logically follow from the non aggression principle of libertarianism? Because they are opposite sides of the same coin. Consider the following case. We see A grabbing the backpack worn by B, and running off with it. Is this a case of theft? Well, it sure seems like it. But if yesterday B stole this backpack from A, and today A is only repossessing his own property, then A’s act certainly does not constitute theft. Rather, it is compatible with the libertarian emphasis on making victims whole, and returning stolen property. So, whether or not a given act counts as stealing depends, totally, crucially, intimately, on the private property rights in question. OTHER REMARKS

On the issue of human nature, I am a student of sociobiology, or evolutionary psychology. Its main message, as I understand it, is that we are now the way we are, to a great degree, because of what it took for our forbears to pass on their genes to us millions of years ago. Thus, none of us are afraid of bathtubs, and all of us fear snakes, because there was a premium placed on this attitude in our pre history. That is, fear of snakes had survival benefits, and better enabled us to make replicas of ourselves; bathtubs played no such role in pre historic times. This is true, even though, nowadays, these bathroom fixtures kill far more of us than the creatures that slide. I don’t really think that my “trust in libertarianism somehow relates to (a) positive view of humans.” I see our species as filled with many kind people, and happily, only a few really malevolent ones. But ignorance is a great problem and there are sociobiological reasons why this should be the case. You are no doubt correct in seeing in both of us opposition to “coercion from any source..., whether a powerful and wealthy capitalist, a government official or a ‘bleeding heart liberal.’” But, the devil is in the details, precisely what we are now trying to encounter. If we are to achieve real disagreement, which, so far, in my opinion, we have not yet attained, you must realize that I do not at all favor “capitalism as it has generally been practiced.” I tried to make this distinction with my examples of good and bad corporations, but that did not work too well with you 76

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

(I shall try again in our chapter on economics.) It sounds a bit perverse to try to attain “real disagreement,” given that the animating philosophy of this book is not so much that we disagree with each other, but, rather, have a cordial exchange where we each try to “walk in the other fellow’s moccasins,” to see if we can attain insight into the others’ viewpoint, with a view toward reconciliation. But, this is not perverse. In order to promote this mutual goal of ours, we must first accurately understand what the other guy stands for, how he thinks. If you are of the opinion that I favor “capitalism as it is generally been practiced” then there is no hope for us. No hope whatsoever. Very much to the contrary, I see “capitalism as it is generally been practiced” as containing large elements of out and out fascism, and I see this as one of the polar opposites of what I as a libertarian favor (the other polar opposite is of course socialism.) A FEW MORE ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS

I now conclude by addressing a few more important ecological issues. Global Warming Should the forces of law and order compel people to act so as to not add to global warming? As a confessed non meteorologist, I am rather sceptical about this entire initiative. In the 1970s, the scholars who are now concerned about global warming were instead warning us about anthropogenic global cooling. And, nowadays, these Chicken Littles, having been once too often been forced to cancel their luxurious jet setting meetings decrying warming, due to severe snowfalls and record low temperatures, have, instead, resorted to weather change as the bogeyman. Well, like the stock market, Fahrenheit recordings do vary. It hardly seems reasonable to use something that will likely inevitably occur in any case as a stick with which to beat up on free enterprise. There is also the problem that the success enjoyed by meteorologists in predicting the weather for the next day or week is less than scintillating. The global warming (a thousand pardons, change) fear mongers are attempting to peer into the future 100 years from now. If they can’t predict in the short term, how can they possibly do so in the long run? The response to this, that the latter is the realm of climatologists, not weathermen, seems singularly unpersuasive. As it happens, the latter are sceptics about the claims of the former (Kaufman, 2010). Then there is the fact that, to a rank outsider such as myself, if there are two contending parties, and one of them castigates the other as “deniers,” pretty much refuses to debate with its advocates, and claims that the “science is settled,” well, I naturally incline in the other direction. In physics, there is a debate between those who say matter is akin to a wave, and others to a particle. Neither denigrates the other in the way that the warmers/changers/coolers do their critics. So, my stance is total uncertainty on this controversy in physics; I am an agnostic. Not so, regarding the temperature debate. Then, too, the chief spokesman for this “settled science” view is Al Gore. I use his book (Gore, 1992) in my environmental courses (I am a fan of balance in 77

CHAPTER 3

presentation, a la John Stuart Mill) and have thus dealt with, oh, some dozen times. Since the readership of the book we are now writing is a general one, I cannot give my full (expletive included) views of Gore (1992); suffice it to say that I am very much unimpressed by it. But, I am certainly open to the possibility of this hypothesis being true, and that therefore this claim justifies compulsion to stop the ruination of the planet, that is, a mass violation of property rights. What would it take to convince me? First, the burden of proof must always rest with he who wishes to overturn extant property rights, as in this case with all sorts of new regulations and infringements on them. How can this burden be met? The alarmists must begin by specifying what the proper temperature is. This, they have never done, even though it is incumbent upon them to do so. Then, they must prove that any deviation from this proper range is man-made, and point to which specific people are the guilty parties; they must prove that other possible causal agents (sunspots, the gigantic swings of the past emanating from uncertain antecedents) are not responsible. They will have to demonstrate the contrary to fact conditional that there has been more warming (or change, or cooling, whatever is the charge du jour) due to man’s presence on the planet and misbehavior that would otherwise have taken place. Maybe, one day, this burden will be met. But, in my estimation, it will take a generation and more for the scholars in this field to recover from that stupendous fall from scientific probity called “climategate.” Ozone Dissipation According to the critics of capitalism, the ozone layer has been partially destroyed, due to the use of underarm deodorants and air conditioners, among other things. This layer protects us from cancer and other dread diseases. If so, this would certainly constitute a rights violation. It would be as if people were walking around with umbrellas, to ward off ultraviolet cancer causing rays, and some thief came along and relieved them of this protection. I pass over, as a non physical scientist, the claim that the ozone layer has been thinned out, mostly, over, of all places, Antarctica, where are precious few deodorant dispensers, and, possibly, even fewer air conditioners. The main difficulty with this charge is that it has not at all met its burden of proof either in terms of depletion of ozone, nor that this has had human antecedents. Given the parlous state of this science, climategate once again rears its ugly head, it is exceedingly unlikely that this burden will be met, at least not in the near term. Running Out of Resources What about dire shortages of resources such as oil, wood, coal, precious metals, food, whatever; is this likely? The main culprit in creating and perpetrating this scare tactic is Meadows, et al. (1972, 64–67 tbl.4, 71) which predicted a desperate (arable) land shortage before the year 2000; that we would run short of gold by 1979, of silver and mercury by 1983, of petroleum by 1990, of zinc by 1988, of tin by 1985 and of natural gas by 1992. Despite these wildly inaccurate assessments, the neo Malthusians (1798) still delight in attempting to scare the unwary. 78

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

Happily, there is a large literature debunking these myths (Kozinski, 2002, who criticizes these wildly mistaken predictions; Featherstone, 2005; Kelly, 2008; Lilley, 2009; Rostan, 2009, Lomborg, 2004). Perhaps the greatest comeuppance against a Malthusian was the famous bet made between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon (Kedrosky, 2010). Both agreed that if a market basket of goods chosen by the two of them rose in price (by the end of the specified time period), this would demonstrate relative scarcity; if it fell, relative superfluity. Free market environmentalist Simon won, as prices fell. The mistake made by those who fear that we will “run out of resources,” is that any tendency in this direction will raise the price of them. And this will have several salutary effects, all of them in the direction of alleviating the original problem, if ever it truly existed. First, at the increased cost, fewer people would purchase the commodities (demand curves slope in a downward direction, after all). Second, the higher prices would yield greater profits (please note, here is yet another demonstration of the beneficial effects of profit) and this would lead manufacturers to economize on the newly more costly input, and use others, instead. Third, all profit seekers would be led “as if by an invisible hand” to discover new sources of the resource in short supply. This is why we never “run out of resources.” Recycling I have no objection to people recycling on a voluntary basis, whether economical or not. If they want to indulge their fetish for this practice, even though it costs more than its benefits, and thus hurts the environment, fine. There is, after all, such a thing as psychic profit; these people are undoubtedly benefiting in that way, and that is their right. But, it is incompatible with the canons of justice to force those who are unwilling to recycle to do so through legal compulsion, e.g., fining them for refraining from this practice. It is also illicit for a monopoly municipal garbage service to refuse to pick up unrecycled refuse at curb-side. (My interest in this issue in particular, and in environmental economics in general, stemmed from an experience I had many years ago with my then 8 year old daughter. She exclaimed, excitedly, “Daddy, daddy, you are environmentally incorrect; you are not recycling your junk.” I was about the explain the economic and environmental facts of life to her when I realized that if I did, and if she believed me, and if, then, in all likelihood she shared this information with her classmates and teachers, she would become very unpopular. I didn’t want that, so I started writing and speaking out about this subject, out of pure frustration at my inability to tell her the truth about these matters.) In the free society, prices and profit considerations would tend to determine who recycles, and which products are treated in this manner. For example, right now, without any governmental compulsion whatever, everyone recycles (and/or reuses) valuable items such as cars, houses, diamonds, gold. Jewelers are very careful not to allow gold dust, cuttings, odd bits of it, to go to waste. If the price of this metal fell, they would be far less careful. If the price of old newspapers rose significantly, everyone would be more inclined to recycle them. At present, however, people are compelled to do so whether or not it is economically advantageous to do so. 79

CHAPTER 3

Plastic Let us stipulate that plastic has all the drawbacks for which its critics denigrate it: it is non bi-degradable, as it decomposes it yields harmful methane and other gases, it harms both land and sea based fauna, etc. Rathje (1989) strongly disagrees with this assessment, stating that telephone books made of paper are far worse, and that plastic is inert, but we will, arguendo, ignore his objections in the present example. Does the market system send out signals to economic actors, leading them as if by an invisible hand to eschew the (now assumed) anti ecological plastic, and, instead, embrace the far more environmentally benign paper? The claim of critics of capitalism is that here we have an instance of “market failure,” but, as we shall see, they are greatly in error. Consider the economics of that ubiquitous consumer decision made at the check out counter at most groceries when that inevitable, fateful question is posed: “Paper or plastic bag?” Let us posit that it costs $.05 for each of these means of conveying groceries home. (We gloss over the issue of whether this charge is explicit or implicit. In the former case, the housewife pays for each bag she uses; in the latter, she may take as many as she reasonably wants, and pays for them in slightly higher prices for all her purchases.) One might deduce, then, that there is no profit incentive for her to do the right thing; she may choose paper over plastic, but if she does so, it is only out of a sense of benevolence, desire to promote environmental considerations, safeguard the planet, etc. Financial considerations are not inclining her in the correct (paper) direction. But the purchase of the paper or plastic bag is only one element of the entire transaction. Not only must the housewife buy one or the other, she must also dispose of whatever she selects. At first glance, this is of no support for the invisible hand thesis either, for the municipal garbage man – dumpsite will charge her the same amount for either, namely, zero (these services are financed through compulsory taxes). So, must we conclude “market failure?” Not at all. The problem is not that the market has failed, it is that it hasn’t been allowed to operate in the first place. How so? This is due to the municipalization (read: socialist takeover) of the garbage disposal industry. Suppose matters were otherwise. Stipulate that this function were totally privatized: pick up service, dumps, were all in private hands. What prices would likely result for disposing of paper and plastic bags, under our assumptions? Let us look it this matter from the point of view of the owner of the garbage dump. If he accepts lots of paper bags, after his facility is all filled in, it can be used for farming, if in an outlying district, or, if not (e.g., the Canarsie neighborhood in Brooklyn) for residential, and/or commercial real estate development. But, if there are many plastic bags buried in it, his resulting land holding will be too poisonous for any such accretion in value to him. (We assume no fraud here; the owner will not be able to use, or sell for the use, of a poisonous plastic filled facility for any valued use.) Does this mean he will not accept any plastic bags at all? Of course not. He is, after all, a capitalist pig; every fiber of his being cries out to maximize profits. Instead, he will charge more for them (on the assumption that “dosage is all”: a few plastic bags will not ruin his chances for a big payoff later on). 80

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

So, let us assume that the harm to his dump will be $100 per plastic bag stored there. Will that be his opening bid to the housewife? Certainly not (if you think so, you’d better reconsider your capitalist pig credentials). He will instead, want to charge her, oh, $10,000 for each one he takes off her hands, thus earning a profit of a cool $9,900 ($10,000 revenue, $100 cost). But, competition from other dumpsite owners will soon enough put paid to this excessive price. Some other garbage emporium will offer the housewife a disposal fee of a “mere” $9,900, thus earning a substantial $9,800, but a third one will “chisel” this down to $9,800, with profits accruing to him of $9,700. Where will this bidding process end? In equilibrium, which we never reach, but always tend toward, profits must be, of course, zero. So, let us cut through this theoretical bidding process, and conclude that the price charged to the housewife to rid herself of that plastic bag is $100. Now, her decision at the supermarket check out counter is made in an entirely different context. Instead of a “tie” between $.05 for the plastic, and $.05 for the paper bag purchase, she now faces a price of $100 + $.05 = $100.05 for buying and disposing of the plastic, but only $.05 + $.05 = $.10 for doing so with the paper bag. With such options, there is no doubt that she will pick the latter, and the environment will be saved, thanks to private property, the functioning of prices and profits in the free society. Does this mean no one will ever use a plastic bag? Not at all. They will do so if and only if they can earn a profit thereby. That is, if the monetary and non monetary benefits of so doing are greater than the total costs, again, monetary, plus non monetary. For example, there is little doubt that plastic intravenous drip bags will still be used by (hopefully) private hospitals. Whereas, today, most people use plastic bags willy nilly, ignoring the (external) costs they are able to impose on others, thanks to the municipalization of garbage dumps. This demonstrates the connection between environmental and economic considerations. The two work together; they are complements, not substitutes. Four Arrows: Walter, thank you for sharing with me the story of your debate opponent laughing at your philosophy. On the one hand I find it disrespectful but on the other I understand how a sense of humor might be helpful when contemplating some of your beliefs. Today I mentioned to several friends that I was co-authoring a book with a professor who believes we should section off portions of the ocean with a technological version of barbed wire and who wants to brand the whales. They laughed. I tried to protect you by saying that you recognize that salmon might be a challenge, but then I told them that you also asserted that the best way to protect the creatures on earth was to put them in zoos of some sort. They laughed again. On the other hand, the three of us spent the better part of the day hiking in the woods while discussing some of your ideas. There was no further disrespect and the three of us were stimulated by other arguments of yours I shared with them. We even came to a few disagreements of our own. I am going to try to be very brief in answering the questions you posed to me and in commenting on some of the more bewildering ideas in your philosophy. I want to begin, however, by apologizing for what you perceived to be an insult when I referred to libertarianism as a religion. I did so only as an analogy, comparing 81

CHAPTER 3

systems of thinking that people apply to all things at all times (religion) to the nature of your claims about libertarianism. Now, you felt I might also be insulted if you called SEEJ a religion. I would not because I also tend to apply the concepts relating to social, economic and ecological justice similarly to all things and to all times. There is, however, a big difference between the two. SEEJ has goals but no real specificity in how to attain those goals whereas your form of libertarianism seems full of rules, like a religion. There also seems to be a very literal interpretation of some of the key figures you quote in support of libertarianism, like the 200 plus year reference by Adam Smith to an “invisible hand,” a divine sounding idea in itself. This reminds me of fundamentalism. In any case, I won’t make the analogy again. As for your calling SEEJ only mine and not ours, I hope you have not forgotten that we both agreed on a definition for SEEJ that implies our work in this book on SEEJ is about preventing violence. LEGALIZING DRUGS

I don’t remember how this topic crept into our chapter on ecological justice, but I open with it because it may be among the few ideas of yours in this chapter that I can agree with you about, or at least understand. In any case, I have long held that legalization of drugs may be the only way to stop the many horrors of the ensuing trafficking problems. The crimes related to the high costs and illegality of drugs are worse than any likely outcome relating to legalization. I also start with this because I thought to myself, “Self, if I agree with Walter on this, why does the same logic not apply to his other ideas?” Well, because it is full of its own special dynamics of course. For example, the relationship between legalizing drugs and regulating cigarette smoking is different on many levels. Now, you have told me that libertarianism is not against government regulation per se, so while I am on this topic, because I truly want to understand when such intervention is OK and when it is not in your mind, I would like for you to briefly tell me and the readers if you feel that no smoking ordinances in public places is a violation of your libertarian view. Is it warranted because second-hand smoke does violence to innocent people? Another example that cannot fully apply our agreed upon logic about drug legalization to the other issues relates to the oceans and your ideas about privatizing blocks of ocean. I see no parallels. So, I will agree with you on this one. We will not likely see drugs legalized, however, because it is too big and profitable an industry with too many connections with governments that know the relationship between price and illegality. Notice I used the word, “profit” in a dirty sense. I was a fan of John Kenneth Galbraith, whom I’m sure you reject. He was a pragmatist who was suspicious of anyone who might say that privatization always works. THE “INVISIBLE HAND”

Speaking of economists, you ask me if I agree with Smith’s theory of the invisible hand. As I think you understand this concept, I do not. My B.S. is in economics and I remember many economists and scholars, from Galbraith to Chomsky, disagreeing 82

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

with this man who died more than two hundred years ago. For a good read that challenges this hypothesis, see economic professor Duncan Foley’s work entitled, Adam’s Fallacy: A guide to Economic Theology (1996). (Sorry, there’s that religious analogy again!) Foley believes, as do I, that the invisible hand does not work, especially if one’s moral and social concerns are sincere. In Wealth of Nations, Smith mentions the concept as a way to convince his readership that consumers or economic actors would honor domestic products rather than foreign ones owing to availability and then indirectly the benefits would go to the people. If he were alive today, I think he would be disappointed to see that this is not working. But perhaps not, since Smith himself did not really believe what his followers claim he did. I’m sure you are familiar with his “vile maxim” reference: These gradually furnished the great proprietors with something for which they could exchange the whole surplus produce of their lands, and which they could consume themselves without sharing it either with tenants or retainers. All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them. The buckles, however, were to be all their own, and no other human creature was to have any share of them; whereas in the more ancient method of expense they must have shared with at least a thousand people. With the judges that were to determine the preference this difference was perfectly decisive; and thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority (Smith, 1776, WN III.iv.10. p. 418) FREE ENTERPRISE AND REGULATION

I now do understand why you say that government regulation has more to do with greedy corporations doing ecological injustice to others, say to people too poor to move away from a polluting factory. Now that I understand it, which was my goal, I agree that your free market ideas might work, but only if the greed for profit was removed. However, it seems you also believe greed cannot be removed. “Why ever would a manufacturer cease and desist from violating the property rights of environmental victims?” if a polluting event was not actionable, you say. Perhaps we agree that this may be as it is. But here is one brief question I’ve asked before and still have not received a satisfactory answer to it: Do your libertarian views constitute a utopian scheme that has never worked and is not functioning now? I recall you saying that things work as you say they can only when markets are stabilized, but that they are never in this condition. I just want to know if there is any period in history, not counting the “free market barter system” of our Indigenous ancestors, where your ideas actually held true. 83

CHAPTER 3

What I read of yours is actually the same as I hear from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. I do not want to minimize your arguments to his level. However, in his book, See I Told You So, he wrote, Take the Cuyahoga River, which caught fire about twenty years ago because it was filled with so much junk and sludge. We set out to clean it up. We rolled up our sleeves and we did it. I’m sure some regulation was used but the major factor was good old American know-how. The key to cleaning up our environment is unfettered free enterprise, our system of reward (1993, p. 157) You claim that laws take credit wrongly for stopping pollution, but the Cuyahoga River is a classic example, not of free enterprise, but of the Clean Water Act you have dismissed. Recall that Senator Ed Muskie used the Cuyahoga example to overcome Nixon’s veto of the clean water legislation. “Unfettered free enterprise” representatives were behind Nixon’s veto. The fight to clean up the rivers was largely due to grass roots activism. So again, with all the history I’ve thrown at you, please just tell me: Is the system you advocate now in existence anywhere in the world? Has it ever been? If we are talking about an ideal whose time has come and you an convince me how to keep the greed out of the picture and avoid “temporary” harm until the market does its thing, I might just join you in supporting it. GREED AND SHRIMP

Walter, so you concede also that the greed and selfishness “operates … with regard to most human endeavors.” (I concede this only as it relates to the main institutions in Western civilization. Generosity and non-ownership were the mainstays of most human activity and still are in many Indigenous cultures.) At the same time, you feel that in the long run, such lack of virtue is handled by free market capitalism. You also said that a shrimp farm that destroys most of its mangrove swamps is just an unfortunate business decision. “That’s the way the cookie crumbles.” Let me get this straight: a greedy capitalist starts a shrimp farm; he destroys the local ecosystem; poisons water for thousands of coastal peoples; destroys the nursery for the ocean’s fish that travel far from Ecuador; creates apoxia (loss of oxygen) in and contamination of sea water; sells a product full of antibiotic residue to consumers who live far from the country where the shrimp farm exists, folks who are clueless about all of this; then eventually, after fifteen years, faces the end of his “pink gold” because he has no more places to dig in his farms. Oh well, that is the way the cookie crumbles. It is part of the free enterprise system you tell me. The innocent people who are hurt by all of this do not matter? What am I missing? Surely, you can’t seriously mean all this? You are too nice a fellow for that! And Walter, don’t ask me to prove this sequence of possible events. Read my book, The Shrimp Habit, or do some research on line, if you must, or just assume what I am saying is true and if so, does this change anything in your thinking? 84

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

SUICIDE AND OVERPOPULATION

I found your argument against a claim that overpopulation is a global problem to be specious. If someone who is concerned about survival of self and others does not want to end survival quickly with suicide, well, this seems logical to me and no way discredits the person’s argument. There are other options that are less violent. Thus, your saying that if one chooses not to self-destruct this proves his or her desire to find ways to curb overpopulation cannot be sincere makes no sense to me. Please reply to this only if I am misunderstanding you. A PITIFUL NUMBER

Since many people have not and do not now consider “Indians” to be truly human, I worry a little about your own characterization. You say “Under capitalism, we will move from the hunting stage in the oceans, to farming. When we did so on the land, we moved from a species of a pitiful few humans, hiding in caves or in trees, to modern, civilized man.” I hope you can see how this is “de-humanizing” my Indigenous ancestors (I put the term in quotes because we see animals as our elders and teachers). You said that “elephants, rhinos and tigers can be big money makers, if their owners have an incentive to profit from them.” Not that long ago some “capitalists” thought the same about Indians. Well, I have written many pages of information comparing and contrasting “modern, civilized man” to pre-contact American Indians. I’ve quoted even the likes of C. Columbus who could not help but write about the generous nature, the joyful ways of being, the care of their children of the people they were about to enslave and murder. Let us not have any “romantic savage” rhetoric here. Please, if you have not read such material, let me know personally and I’ll send you more material to this effect than you can digest. In any case, this is all I have to say about your “pitiful few humans” theory. ONLY TWO CATEGORIES

The idea that there is no such thing as authentic generosity or non-reciprocal altruism has been discussed in academic and scientific circles for many years. I just wrote about it in my recent book, Critical Neurophilosophy and Indigenous Wisdom. Suffice it to say that there is ample evidence that both non-human animals and human animals do operate according to something that cannot simply be placed into your profit-loss paradigm for all things from brushing teeth to playing handball. I do understand that most of our daily routines play out according to a benefits and gains assessment either consciously or unconsciously, so I am not dismissing your ideas or the neuroscientists who share it. However, I hope in the future you will not consider it to be such a black and white issue, especially as it relates to SEEJ where examples of authentic behaviors beyond a selfish risk analysis are common. Compassion, so the literature and reflection on life experiences would tell us, is not such a “weak reed” as you might think. 85

CHAPTER 3

COWS AND BUFFALOS

You ask me what my reservations are about not accepting your comparison between barnyarding cows and free roaming buffalo. Briefly: 1. I know the Lakota ways and understand the spiritual nature of the buffalo, their great wisdom, and their teachings. I could talk about their having existed 300,000 years before your privatization, free enterprise, and capitalist ideas contributed to their quick decimation so Indians could be taken out of the way to make room for development across “empty” lands. Your argument that the buffalo would have been saved from extinction if owned by the Indians is interesting. I am thinking of what might have happened if the Indians had “No Trespassing” signs all over the place when the Europeans first arrived. Since a hostile invasion of other lands is against libertarian ideology, I presume you would say they should have turned around and went home? Or is this whole privatization thing based on a piece of paper and a sales receipt? 2. Please don’t assign any agreement between us on this (“I fully agree with you on this, and thank you for helping me better make this distinction.” The Indigenous Peoples of the plains and the buffalo did well for many, many years until an act occurred that you say libertarians see as wrongful. (Invasion of other lands is a “paradigmatic violation of the non aggression principle of libertarianism.”) How can you not see this simple fact of history? 3. I have proved to be a major environmental problem. The grains fed to them would feed far more hungry people than does the meat. The deforestation that occurs from grazing them is a serious problem. There are other difficulties with cows and the environment I could list. A good educational system would allow students to investigate them. There are also the “animal rights” arguments with which I’m sure you are familiar. A field trip to a feed lot would enlighten many folks. Then of course, there is the consumer health issues relating to the consumption of beef. You get my point I think. Non private property rights and free roaming animals were not a cost to Indians nor did it hurt their economic welfare nor harm them in any way. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND EXTINCTION

You ask me to explain “what history I refer to” when talking about the reason for animal extinction as it relates to free enterprise. You offer the Alaskan wolf as an example of how business and industry could have had nothing to do with it because there is not much industry there. First of all, there are more wolves left in Alaska than any other state, so this sort of reverses your argument right out of the gate. Second, the reason for wolves being killed in Alaska is directly related to privatization and industry. People are allowed to shoot them from airplanes owing to a controversial belief that this increases caribou herds. Hunting and viewing caribou and other 86

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

prey animals are a significant part of Alaska’s tourism industry, the state’s third largest source of income. Walter, do you really deny that human encroachment into the wilderness for the sake of implementing free enterprise is the major reason for endangered animals? How many have you seen in New Orleans lately? T-SHIRTS AND MONOCULTURE TREE PLANTING

There are many enterprises from co-op stores to co-op gardens that do very well with common ownership. Many Japanese companies have cooperative ownership. Products can be good or bad if in private hands or if in the commons. National parks do a fair job of managing lands and they are essentially commonly owned. The T-shirt logic does not work for me any better than your saying that hands-off capitalism will provide just the right amount of trees. Have you ever studied the difference between natural systems that once were located where lumber companies now plant endless rows of identical trees? They are nothing short of an environmental catastrophe. They use water excessively, deplete soils, finish off the destruction of biodiversity in the local area. Why? Because the privatization and free market can continue to earn a profit on the lumber from the replanted trees and, like the shrimp farms, to hell with the health and balance of ecosystems or the ecological injustices perpetrated on those who are negatively affected. No crumbling cookie here. The lumber will continue to sell. MCDONALDS, GOLF COURSES, ETC.

You feel it is wrong for private citizens to vote against a McDonald’s being built in their community and have asked me how I feel about this. You also wanted to know if I feel any regulations should be used to stop golf courses from using too much water. As it happens, I live near Tofino during the summer. It is a very small town geared toward tourism based on its high-class food shops and art galleries. Because I believe in the greater good, in the ability of free people to pass laws for the general welfare, I tend to side with the Tofino legislation based on what I know about McDonalds and Tofino. The two of them are simply not a good fit. But I admit I had to think about this one. There are some grey areas perhaps. Still, I don’t understand why you are against a community preventing one company from using up all its water or a group of firms not wanting a particular industry to locate in their neighborhood, for their own private business reasons or to prevent contributing to ecological damage or injustice. In any case, let’s move on to the golf course question. I thought you and I agreed that doing violence to others was not good; that libertarianism was not against regulation. Since you believe in laws and have said so several times, would not taking water away from others be doing such violence? All of this returns me to a question that will help me understand your views: How do libertarians see legislation taking place? I mean, when is it OK to ban smoking in public places; may towns decide if they want a pig farm next to the city park; or ban a business that will blow toxic smoke across town, or use up too much water? 87

CHAPTER 3

STEALING THE STOLEN

Of course I can understand that if one steals back an object that was stolen from the person in the first place, this would not be considered theft. I cannot help but consider the corollaries to this. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in a rare instance of support for the American Indian side, found that the taking away of the Black Hills in South Dakota from the Lakota was illegal. Monetary payments were awarded by the courts but the Indians have refused the money. They want the land back. According to your theory, and I agree with it, the Lakota should be able to take over the Washington Monument and the many businesses and homes that have been built on this land, right? Wait a minute. If I go back to the principle of non aggression, and couple it with the theorem that “possession is 9/10 of the law,” perhaps the North American Indians have the right to take back pretty much the entire country! Am I missing something here? Or is this an example where a theory is not doing so well describing reality as you say it is supposed to do? FIXED PIE

You believe that there is not a “fixed pie” in nature and that under capitalism the “pie actually increases.” I understand the economic argument against zero sum on a number of levels and realize how innovation, technology and human creativity can seem to expand our abilities to use “natural resources” (aka “our relatives.”) However, I find the argument that Earth’s resources are unlimited to be a wrong-headed interpretation of the economic phenomenon to which you refer. Oil is a finite resource because it is no longer being formed. Top soil can be replaced but this is limited to about one inch every three hundred years (Tverberg, 2007). Fresh water tables are dropping throughout the world and the energy costs of producing fresh water from salt water and sewage are problematic. Walter, you yourself mentioned the slow growing nature of trees, and the problems of deforestation are well documented. Certain plants in the Amazon rain forests that might have been used for medicines are gone forever (see the movie, “Medicine Man” for a very dramatic depiction of this problem). Extinction rates are accelerating and once a creature is gone, it is gone forever. I encourage our readers to engage this topic and consider it also in light of the next one. GLOBAL WARMING AND OZONE DEPLETION

You refer to those scientists who claim there is ozone destruction as “critics of capitalism.” Walter, with all due respect, in even responding to you on this I am breaking a personal vow not to engage again with individuals who generalize that the overwhelming number of scientists in the world that support human caused ozone depletion and climate change are merely a part of some anti-capitalism scam. Not even Dick Lindzen talks like this. Lindzen, as I’m sure you know, is one of the few legitimate scientists who says the conclusions of most other scientists are unnecessarily alarming. Of course, Lindzen, whose graduate students describing him as having a contrarian streak and who clearly relishes the role of naysayer 88

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

(“The Contrarian,” 2006), also says there is no link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking. He says this in between drags on his on cigarette of course. So, I’m sorry, but I will not respond to your claims here with volumes of scientific material that counters them. Your requirements for satisfying a burden of proof in light of your personal belief that this is all a conspiracy to take away private property can, if our readers desire, be fodder for their own counter-arguments. In 1992, my right-wing father-in-law, a good-hearted Rush Limbaugh fan, told me there was no such thing as ozone depletion and he could prove it. He then sent me a tape of Limbaugh quoting NASA’s director of climate studies, Dr. Joe Waters, or at least claiming to quote him, saying “there is no ozone hole.” I called Dr. Waters and he personally told me that his was taken out of context, stating that owing to weather conditions and other factors, there was no ozone hole in one particular location at that time. He went on to mention that ozone depletion was one of the greatest problems facing mankind. (I tell this story in detail in my 1994 book, The Bum’s Rush: The Selling of Environmental Backlash (Phrases and Fallacies of Rush Limbaugh.) I am frankly surprised by your position on global warming, but then again, I invited you to co-author this book with me because I found most of your arguments frustratingly off base and wanted to understand them better and wanted the public to do so as well. However, in this case, I am not inclined to work at understanding your position because after many years I believe I now understand it all too well. FOR HUMANS ONLY

You say, animals, birds, flora and fauna, etc. “do not at all have intrinsic value, only instrumental value, as a means toward our ends.” This is one place where I will not try to understand you, but ask you to understand me. This is because I know too well the problem of anthropocentrism and you are far from being alone in embracing it. Most liberals, conservatives, socialists, blacks, whites, doctors and taxi drivers, and most religions all concur. The idea that everything on earth, from plants and oceans to animals and fish are exclusively on earth for humans to exploit is to me the single greatest disagreement between us and one that colors most of the rest of our perspectives on SEEJ. I don’t know how slavery plays into your human benefit only economic theory or what would happen if an alien race felt the same way about humans as you do about animals. I do know that as long as we refer to “natural resources” as anything but “relatives” (yes, whether rocks, oil, trees or whales) this “white versus red” problem will divide us. I do have one question, however, one that you said is not important but I believe is crucial. Why do you want to prevent animal or plant extinction? It seems to be important to you. How do you select which creatures go to the barnyards? Is keeping a few tigers around important to you simply for entertainment purposes? And where did your anthropocentric view come from? For most it is based on Christianity or Judaism and God’s supposed references to the idea of stewardship. How does an atheist acquire the particular disposition? Just curious. At this point, when I look at our compromises and agreements, and I truly think there have been 89

CHAPTER 3

many so far, I feel that the most important one involves a “do no harm” policy. However, in light of your ideas about ecological justice and sustainability as expressed in this chapter, I am wondering if what you consider to be harmful is so limited as to make this agreement less substantial than I thought it to be. In any case, I hope your replies to my brief statements will also be succinct and that your last word will help assure our readers that this dialogue, and its commitment to cooperative argumentation, is still on target. In conclusion, if the quarterly profit report were not more important than the seventh generation (Most Indigenous Peoples make conscious decisions by considering what the effect will be on future generations. This practice is often referred to as “thinking about the seventh generation.”) to most corporations; and if greed and power were not endemic in the current monetary system; and if the disparity between haves and have nots was not at least partially result of such greed and power; then perhaps a system where free market competition allowed for all “public goods,” like water, air, oceans and forests, to be owned, marketed and sold, would make sense. Perhaps this would prevent many of the wars caused by corrupt governments and we could regain balance in the world. Wait, I have to add that the governments that are corrupt could not be made so by corporate influence. The aforementioned did not come out as conciliatorily as I wanted. Let me try harder, more sincerely, really. I do believe that if there were absolutely no restrictions imposed from any person within a hierarchical structure whatsoever, nor any special favors granted; and if individuals were not ignorant of the interconnections we have with our planet, its creatures and natural systems, then I believe people could be free to organize any type of barter system (including free enterprise) without the negative repercussions the free market is currently causing. After all, Indigenous peoples lived for thousands of years without government interference and did so with great freedom and few social problems. Of course, the majority of their cultures were not hierarchical. Rather, they emphasized the vital importance of generosity in the world. Walter: One of the benefits of this sort of back and forth dialogue, Four Arrows, is that we each get a chance to modify our previous statements in the light of the other’s response. I am especially grateful to you for clearly stating your own views, and your objections to mine, as this gives me the opportunity to clarify my own. This has been a great learning experience for me, and I appreciate the role you have taken in furthering my education. Paul Newman in the movie Cool Hand Luke said, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” He might well have been speaking about this chapter. I have little hope attaining full clarification between the two of us. I gave it my best shot above and I don’t recognize in your comments the cognizance of most of what I have said, and, I imagine you could, with equal justice, say the same of me. It is as if we are speaking two very different languages and we don’t yet have a reliable dictionary with which to translate what the other guy is saying. But, that’s ok. We have an entire book to go, and we are only on chapter 3. There is plenty of time for further discussion. 90

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

I am very glad the arguments in this chapter that you relayed to your two hiking friends amused them so much. This bodes well for the sale of our book. Just think: if it sells well, we’ll make lots of profits! (As I say this, I’m tossing money up into the air and letting it roll down on me, cackling and drooling, and laughing hysterically, sort of like one of my great heroes, Scrooge McDuck, who was given to this practice in his gigantic money bins.) Since electronic fences seem to have been the subject of much mirth for you and your friends, let me start with them. What I meant to say, what I should have said, was not that these modern versions of sea going barbed wire could be implemented right now (I fear I implied just that); instead, I should have limited myself to the more modest claim that I fully expect they could come on line in the not too distant future, if the law of the sea was amended so as to be able to afford profits for those who did so. But, I do think that it is even now possible to electronically mark off whales, distinguishing “mine” from “thine,” in a modern equivalent to cattle branding. I concede to you that speaking of “zoos” and “barnyards” for elephants, fish, rhinos, whales, is pretty funny, at least at the outset. My experience with college freshmen pretty much bears this out. But, as they get used to the idea, they begin, more and more, to see the sense of it. Perhaps that is what will happen with your hiking friends with that good sense of humor. As for salmon, I don’t think fences could work; at least at present, it would be too complicated. But branding them may well become a different story, if the law is changed to accommodate that sort of thing. And, even now, farmed salmon are becoming a greater and greater proportion of this resource. After the socialist environmentalist Paul Ehrlich lost his wager to his free market counterpart Julian Simon, the former offered a follow up proposition to the latter: that the price of open water salmon would rise, indicating their falling stocks. Simon’s response was to suggest they open this subsequent bet up to include both types of salmon; that shut Ehrlich up pretty quickly. He wasn’t entirely stupid; he realized that while this type of fish in the open range might become scarce due to the tragedy of the commons, this would not apply to the farmed variety. I thank you for being willing to apologize to me for refereeing to libertarianism as a religion. However, I refuse to accept your apology. The fault, I think, was mine. I have to, one, develop a thicker skin about things like that, and two, read more carefully what you are writing, instead of flying off the handle as I did. I regret I complained about that description. You did not at all mean to disparage my views as cultish or unscientific. Upon further reflection and a more charitable reading, you were using the word “religion,” instead, to refer to something quite different: as a set of rules, a system of thinking and the offering of literal interpretations. And, yes, Adam Smith can easily be seen as viewing his “invisible hand” as God’s work, or God’s hand, and I certainly did cite this. Also, as it happens, my brand of economics has indeed been called “market fundamentalism” (Caplan, 2007; Block, 2007), and you have insightfully picked up on that. So, if there is anyone at fault here, it is me, not you. As to my distancing myself from SEEJ, if the essence of this is “preventing violence” of the initiatory type, then I reiterate my support for it. But, I fear, this is 91

CHAPTER 3

a bit of a stipulative definition. My revulsion toward this nomenclature has more to do with how most people use the phrase “social justice”: pretty much as a synonym for political correctness, socialist “justice,” and egalitarianism. I am delighted we can make common cause on the legalization of drugs. I find it of great interest that left liberals and libertarians agree on drug legalization, but not, usually, on allowing a full free market in gold, whereas libertarians and right wing conservatives are more often than not on the same side of the gold issue, but not addictive substances. Only libertarians favour full economic freedom in both cases. As to the issue of cigarettes, which I think falls well within the realm of ecological justice, here, briefly, are my views. First, there would be no public places, so the issue of smoking there would not arise. Second, as to private property used by many people, proprietors, customers, etc. (farms, factories, parks, shopping malls, groceries, bars, homes, schools, streets, roads), each owner would determine his own rules for tobacco use, and then customers, visitors, etc., would sort themselves out on the basis of them. Competition for profits (not at all a dirty word in my lexicon) would determine which regulations prevailed. For example, a health food store would probably go broke if it allowed any smoking at all, while a pub might well meet the same fate if it banned it entirely. Malls, likely, would allow smoking at some places not others (smoking sections), perhaps only at some times of day. There could be no such thing as a second hand smoke problem under a regime of full private property, at least indoors, since no one would patronize any establishment that allowed cigarettes to be used, if he was offended by them. As for smoke that travels from an area owned by one proprietor to that of another, we have already thoroughly discussed this under the heading of pollution (different rules prevailed early and later in the 18th century). I am not as big a supporter of Adam Smith as I fear I have led you to believe. I think he allowed for far too many compromises with economic liberty (Rothbard, 1987, 1995). However, I am surprised that you totally reject the invisible hand concept. Surely, the baker and the butcher and the candle stick make create some good (for their customers), even in the cases where this was no part of their intention, which was, I posit, to earn profits with which to feed themselves and their families. Do you really believe that nothing worthwhile can ever arise out of such selfish motives? As for the “vile maxim,” if those “diamond buckles” were earned honestly, through what the sociologist Oppenheimer calls the “economic means,” then I am all for it; in every step in the attainment of that jewel, there was mutual benefit. If through what he calls the “political means,” I bitterly oppose it, for in this case one party gained at the expense of the other. Here is a clarification on libertarians supporting some government regulations. This philosophy includes several sub categories. For the anarcho capitalists such as Murray Rothbard, my own mentor, no government regulations are justified, since the state is itself entirely an illicit institution. For limited government libertarians, or minimal statists or minarchists such as Ayn Rand, the state has one and only one proper function: to protect persons and property against the initiation or threat of 92

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

force or fraud. To this end, three different institutions are legitimate, and so are regulations they create to this end: armies to protect us from foreign invaders, police to keep us safe from local criminals, and courts to determine guilt or innocence. A third far less radical type of libertarian, or, better yet, classical liberal (such as Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek or Adam Smith) would add quite a few more government functions, and hence additional regulations, to the mix. Which government regulations, then, are justified by the limited government libertarians? Only those that promote the non aggression axiom. People should be “regulated” so as to not commit murder, rape, mayhem, and that is it. In this philosophy, there would be no price, quantity or quality regulations. The government would not ban any voluntary commercial interaction between consenting parties. Pollution, trespassing smoke particles, would of course be prohibited. You mention “people too poor to move away from a polluting factory” and I am delighted that you have done so, Four Arrows, for this leads, directly, to the question of “environmental racism” which we have so far ignored, despite my intention to offer to our readers as wide a coverage of ecological justice issues as we could in this chapter. What is environmental racism? This is part of the general charge that the free enterprise system is inevitably and necessarily racist: the specific complaint, here, is that black people (or whichever victim group is under discussion) get the short end of the ecological stick: it is they who end up living cheek by jowl with dirty rivers, near acid lakes, in polluted neighborhoods, next door to noisy airports, right beside tanning factories or pig farms, etc. This sounds horrible, but the devil is in the details. There are not one but two sources of this sort of thing. One, a firm purposefully locates its heavily polluting plant in or next door a black area, on the ground that these people are too poor, or too unsophisticated, or too disorganized, to effectively oppose this nefarious plan. This I regard as totally unjust; a sort of environmental rape. Two, this source of ecological contamination has located itself there first, before, long before anyone else is there. Then, later on, members of the black community settle there. Why? Due to the lack of amenities in the surrounding terrain, real estate values plummet, and blacks, with less wealth than others on average, naturally gravitate in that direction, so as be economical. This scenario, in sharp contrast, is fully just. There is no violation of the libertarian principle of non aggression. To think that “free market ideas might work, but only if … profit was removed,” is, I fear, akin to saying that an orchestra can play Mozart, but only if they don’t produce any musical notes. The free enterprise system is predicated upon the attempt not merely to earn profits, but to maximize them. As I say, in my toothbrush example, profit is ubiquitous to all human behaviour. Four Arrows, you ask me this: Do your libertarian views constitute a utopian scheme that has never worked and is not functioning now? I recall you saying that things work as you say they can only when markets are stabilized, but that they are never in this condition. I just want to know if there is any period in history, not counting the “free market barter system” of our Indigenous ancestors, where your ideas actually held true. 93

CHAPTER 3

I am sorry if I have previously evaded this question. Believe me, ‘twas unintentional. I will certainly respond now. Yes, I agree; laissez faire capitalism is utopian in the sense that it has never been perfectly implemented. We humans have come close to it, however. For example, Hong Kong before China took it over (Gwartney, Lawson and Block, 1976), ancient Ireland (Peden, 1977), Iceland (Friedman, 1979; Long (1994); Solvason, (1992), the Indus Valley (Thompson, 2006), Mexico (Clay, 1997) and even the early U.S., if you abstract from slavery. But, no “cigar” in any of these cases. There were deviations from strict liberty in all of them. “Utopian,” however, has a negative connotation. I also oppose murder and rape. Suppose someone asked me, has there ever been a large society with none of these outrages took place over many decades at all? I would have to concede that this has never been attained, although some cases are much closer to this ideal than others. I see eliminating murder and rape in much the same way as I view getting rid of obstacles to full free trade and fully defending private property rights. We have never attained either of these goals. Quite possibly, mankind being what he is, we never will. But that doesn’t mean that these “utopian” goals are not worthwhile, either set of them. Well, the absence of rape and murder would clearly “work,” it might be said. But, if capitalism were fully implemented, society would no longer function; it would fall apart. We would have poverty, unemployment, starvation, inequities, whatever. My response is, that is what the remainder of this book, in part, is for. All we can do in this chapter is discuss whether or not the environment would be protected under full private property rights. And, at least so far, I see no reason why it would not, despite the fact that these suggestions have never been fully implemented. One of the benefits of economic freedom is that our economic actions can become coordinated with those of others. Only in full equilibrium is perfect coordination attained. We are never in complete equilibration with each other, but are continually grinding away in that direction. Perhaps “free market barter system” is a typographical error. Although barter can indeed and sometimes does exist under laissez faire, the two are hardly to be equated with one another. I despise the foreign policy views of Rush Limbaugh (to be discussed in a future chapter); on economics, he is not all that bad, in my opinion. But, I am quite a bit more radical than him with regard to the fire that took place on the Cuyahoga River. In my view, that conflagration would likely not ever happened had a private firm owned the entire waterway. The proprietors would have better protected their investment. Rush likens the clean up of this waterway by government authorities under the auspices of the Clean Water Act to “unfettered free enterprise.” He is obviously mistaken in this. If the government or “grass roots activism” was so efficient at protecting the environment, why did this river catch fire in the first place? Greed and selfishness, on the one hand, and benevolence and generosity on the other, are part of the human condition. All members of our species have both set of attributes. The difference between us, Four Arrows, is not with the former; we both appreciate those characteristics. It is, rather, with the latter. You are disgusted and appalled by them. I, in contrast, look at them, I think, more realistically. There are good socio-biological reasons why they exist in all human beings, and this certainly 94

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

includes Indigenous peoples, Ghandi, socialists, those who brush their teeth, etc. I try to harness these characteristics, as I have been trying to explain, via the invisible hand, so that they can do some good. Can anything be more wonderful than turning characteristics so denigrated by all and sundry into the promotion of human welfare through economic development? Four Arrows, you attribute to me the statement “that a shrimp farm that destroys most of its mangrove swamps is just an unfortunate business decision. That’s the way the cookie crumbles,” and are not too happy with the way I view this matter. Please allow me a slight correction to the way you put this matter: I defend the right of a shrimp farm to destroy its own mangrove swamps, not those belonging to other people. I think it would be difficult to reconcile my view on this with me defending a person who “poisons water for thousands of coastal peoples.” By stipulation, that shrimp farm is invading people’s property in which it has no property title, and this is the paradigm case of what libertarianism opposes. I tried to make this point clear at the outset of this chapter with my stories about farmers whose hay was burned, little old ladies whose washing was dirtied, etc. Evidently, I have failed. But, it was not for lack of trying. You suggest that I “assume what (you are) saying is true and if so, does this change anything in (my) thinking?” No, it does not change my thinking by one iota, because I have already made this precise point! I have also failed to make, at least to your satisfaction, what I thought was a splendid reductio ad absurdum against the over-populationists who refuse to commit suicide. Ah, well, you can’t win them all. But, I’m comforted by the fact that this might supply yet more mirth to you and your hiking buddies. Do you seriously deny that this earth could support more people, far more people, when our species moved from the hunting to the farming stage, (to say nothing of manufacturing and service industries) and, that each person could then live a richer and far less precarious existence? If you do deny this, and in carefully reading what you said in reply to this claim of mine I think you do, I really don’t know what more to say. Well, except that I can deny that this has anything at all to do with “enslavement and murder.” No, wait, I’ve got another thought. Suppose that at present, we went back to hunting and gathering; that is, we stopped farming, and lived by hunting alone. My estimate is that this planet could then support only, oh, a few tens of millions of people, instead of its present 6 billion plus. In other words, if we did that, we would consign to death the overwhelming majority of the world’s present population. That would be “pitiful” both in terms of the mass extermination of human beings, as well as in regard to the fact that the remaining few would have “pitiful” standards of living. I really don’t understand how you could gather the impression that I think “there is no such thing as authentic generosity or non-reciprocal altruism.” Have I not mentioned benevolence, psychic income, charity, etc., more than just a few times in this chapter? Just because I maintain these characteristics can also “be placed into (my) profit-loss paradigm” does not mean I don’t think they exist; if anything, it demonstrates the very opposite. Nor do I think compassion a “weak reed” – when it comes to close relatives and friends. But, insofar as strangers are concerned, particularly ones who don’t like the sort of person I am, if I had to bet my next 95

CHAPTER 3

meal on it, I would sooner trust their greed and selfishness than their benevolence. Says Smith (1776): Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his bretheren (sic), and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices [goods and services, benefits, advantages, and rewards] which we stand in need of. It is not from benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantage. To me, this is one of the most beautiful and compelling statements in all of economics. It is pure poetry. I highly recommend this to you, Four Arrows. I would dearly love to know why you reject these pearls of wisdom. In case this doesn’t convince you, I also offer you Read (1958), a magnificent story about how the lowly pencil is created. Its moral is that the market brings together millions of people in cooperative commercial ventures who do not know each other, and, if they ever met, might well come to blows with one another. Nowhere is Paul Newman’s statement about “failure to communicate” more apropos than with our discussion of cows and buffalos. I am not at all talking about “the spiritual nature of the buffalo, their great wisdom, and their teachings.” Nor am I concerned with wars between the Indian and the white man, “hostile invasion(s),” with what happened 300,000 years ago, or whether privatization is merely a matter of pieces of paper. No, these issues, interesting though they are, are totally irrelevant to my economic analysis of the different survival rates of the cow and the buffalo in relatively recent American history, which is the only topic under discussion right now as far as I can see. Nor is it of the slightest interest to me, that is while discussing animal extinction, whether or not “Cows have proved to be a major environmental problem,” or the status of “animal rights,” nor, yet, the health aspects of eating beef. To repeat, I bring up the cow and the buffalo for one reason and one reason only: to demonstrate that when an animal is owned privately, it prospers; when not, it becomes endangered. There is nothing in this intrinsic to these two species. Suppose matters were turned around: the cow ran wild, and the buffalo, instead, was domesticated. Under those conditions, I would be making the very exact same point: privatization spells life, running free is a death knell. Only now, it would be the cow in mortal danger, and the buffalo with no risk of extinction. There is this evil song, “Home, home on the range.” Here is its first stanza: Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam, Where the deer and the antelope play; Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, And the skies are not cloudy all day. 96

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

This is commie crap and economic illiteracy of the highest (lowest?) order. The deer, buffalo, antelope, and all our other brothers of field and stream, would be far better off in a barnyard, or zoo, if we really had their welfare, or survival, at heart. You characterize as “interesting (my) argument that the buffalo would have been saved from extinction if owned by the Indians,” or, in my view, anyone else for that matter. But, forget, for the moment, other people; just focus, I ask, on the Indians. Please plumb a little deeper into this. Do you think it is true? How do you explain the very different experiences of these two creatures? Do you think that cows were never in any danger of extinction because they have low IQs, while the buffalo is smarter, in that we can learn from its “spiritual nature … great wisdom, and … teachings?” As concerns the wolf, I don’t comprehend how its situation “sort of reverses (my) argument right out of the gate.” Yes, “the reason for wolves being killed in Alaska is directly related to … industry.” But, it is not at all involved with “privatization,” as you also assert. Neither the wolves, nor the caribou, nor virtually any of the lands in Alaska were or are privately owned. Please do not think that because libertarians support privatization we also give our imprimatur to “industry” and whatever it does. Again, I revert back to “good” and “bad” corporations. The two things – support for business, and for the free enterprise system – are very different. Yes, I “really (do) deny that human encroachment into the wilderness for the sake of implementing free enterprise is the major reason for endangered animals.” Rather, the cause is the tragedy of the commons based on non ownership. Long ago, humans “encroached into the wilderness” and domesticated cows, sheep, chickens, dogs, etc., and none of them have ever been “endangered.” Not so lucky were those species not so treated. Four Arrows, you are quite right to upbraid me for my point about t shirts. I stand corrected by you on this. As you say “There are many enterprises from co-op stores to co-op gardens that do very well with common ownership.” What I should have said, is that when people voluntarily pool their resources into cooperative ventures, then all is well with the world, at least insofar as justice is concerned. And, if, perchance, the co-op in question doesn’t work out to their satisfaction, then, in accordance with the contract they have signed with each other, they can disband it, and each go their separate ways, taking back their own property. (This is one of the benefits of co authoring a book with a sharp eyed, and friendly critic such as yourself: I am continually forced to refine what I say.) There are many other such voluntary co-ops which seem to function just fine: monasteries, nunneries, convents, kibbutzim (well, those without state support), hippie communes, real estate cooperatives. Even the capitalist corporation constitutes a voluntary cooperative pooling of resources. However, you and I part company when you say “National parks do a fair job of managing lands and they are essentially commonly owned.” What evidence can you offer to back up this claim? I find it difficult to believe they do a “fair job” when they cannot go broke and be forced to give way to better management if they fail to do so. There is no automatic feedback mechanism in the public sector to ensure a tendency toward efficiency, as there is in the private sector: profit and loss. And, the national parks are certainly not “essentially commonly owned,” at 97

CHAPTER 3

least not from the perspective that they represent a common pooling of resources on a voluntary basis. If they were, I hereby announce I would like to sell my share of these national parks. There is absolutely no provision for any such option, which undermines this claim. If your claim that “endless rows of identical trees” are vastly inferior to the previously existing “natural systems” of forests, then lumber companies which engage in this pattern ought to be losing out in the competitive market struggle for profits against their counterparts that eschew this type of tree planting. This is true, at least, if all external diseconomies are mercilessly cut off at the knees, precisely the vision of free market environmentalists. Why do you claim they are “an environmental catastrophe?” I have a criterion for success or failure in this regard: If they use water excessively, and have to pay for it themselves, if they deplete their own soils, they will earn lower profits than their competitors who eschew such unwise policies, and will tend to lose out to them in the competitive struggle between firms (assuming no government bailouts.) If they “finish off the destruction of biodiversity in the local area,” they will be hauled into court and then thrown in jail, in the libertarian society, for violation of the property rights of other people. If they “finish off the destruction of biodiversity” on their own property, and biodiversity helps with the bottom line, they will lose profits and be compelled by laws of economics to exit the industry. On the other hand, if biodiversity does not promote profits, then this is the most economical and therefore environmentally just policy to pursue. I have now given you a very clear operational definition of ecological justice: profit maximization within a system where no property rights are violated. What, in contrast, is your operational definition of environmental sanity? Somehow, don’t ask me why, I have a feeling that you will reject this line of reasoning. After all, you do say: “… the privatization and free market can continue to earn a profit on the lumber from the replanted trees and, like the shrimp farms, to hell with the health and balance of ecosystems or the ecological injustices perpetrated on those who are negatively affected.” Not so, not so at all. Or, at least not necessarily so. It all depends upon whether the negative effect is legitimate or not. For example, if I open up a bakery shop near yours, and attract your customers away from you, I “negatively affect” you. But this is “how the cookie crumbles”; it is part and parcel of the free enterprise system. But, if you were there first, and then I “negatively affect” your bakery by sending over to it my exhaust fumes, or carbon particles, or loud noises, or bad smells from my pig farm or tannery, or in any other such way violate your property rights, then, at least on the basis of jurisprudence prevalent in the 1830s, I get carted off to the hoosegow; that is, I cannot legally do this to you. This distinction is a very important one. I have not yet articulated this in a clear enough manner; that is why I keep harping on it. Four Arrows, you say you “don’t understand why (I am) against a community preventing one company from using up all its water or a group of firms not wanting a particular industry to locate in their neighborhood, for their own private business reasons...” I am delighted to try to better explain. Suppose a company wanted to use up, not all the local water, but, instead, the entire supply of labor, or shoes. How would this “interloper” get to hire all of the workers in a town? Why, by 98

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

offering higher wages than those that now prevail. Why should they not have the right to do exactly that, or, at least, to try to do so? Didn’t we agree that the essence of SEEJ, in your preferred terminology, or, in mine, plain old justice, was that violence not be used against innocent people? Well, merely attempting to hire all the employees in town, by offering higher wages, certainly need not involve any initiation of aggression. (Hershey Pennsylvania is a case in point.) And, it is the same with shoes. Suppose I go to Tofino, intent on purchasing all the footwear in town; both those in the stores, and as well on people’s feet, and in their closets. How will I accomplish this task? Why, by making generous bids for their shoes, new and used. Now, I might not succeed. Some Tofino-ites might resist my blandishments. But to forbid me from even trying is a violation of my natural rights. Why should it be any different with water? Why cannot I be allowed to bid for all the water I want? How else are we to rationally allocate H2O, or shoes or labor services for that matter? Why is water different than other goods and services? As for “a group of firms not wanting a particular industry to locate in their neighbourhood,” and being able to prevent it by law, I oppose this because it is economic fascism or mercantilism. By what right do persons A get to tell persons B that they cannot come to town, attempt to buy up some land from willing sellers, and set up whatever business they wish (assuming this new venture does not pollute, invade, etc)? In economics this is called restrictions on entry, and it constitutes a particularly vicious form of monopoly. This is what was done in the feudal era; if you wanted to set up a new commercial venture, you had first to obtain the permission of the local masters and journeymen; for a fee, they might perhaps allow you to become an apprentice, and to work under their direction. You were not allowed to set up shop on your own, without a bye your leave from them. Surely, you would join me in opposing this sort of legalistic bullying? Well, no, for you go on to say “I thought you and I agreed that doing violence to others was not good…. Since you believe in laws and have said so several times, would not taking water away from others be doing such violence?” Yes, indeed, taking water away from others, as in stealing it from them, or grabbing it from them at gunpoint would indeed constitute violence, and would be stopped in its tracks by any libertarian police force worthy of its salt. And, this of course would apply to shoes and labor services and everything else for that matter. However, bidding water (or footwear or employees) away from other people certainly does not constitute the use of invasive violence. Rather, this is part and parcel of the ordinary functioning of the market. Four Arrows, let us return to your toothbrush. You took this away from all other potential purchasers of it, by buying it. A civilized man, you did not utilize murder, or assault and battery to obtain that dental aid. Why oh why should matters be different by even one iota for water? The libertarian rule is, any and all (capitalist) acts between consenting adults are licit, and nothing else is. If you can’t see your way clear to agreeing with me on this bidding for water, and cannot furnish me with a relevant difference between this commodity and all others, I shall have no recourse but to consider you a taker-away-from-others-of-a-toothbrush, you brute, you. You ask: “How do libertarians see legislation taking place?” The answer is that apart from truly unique new challenges, we already have more than enough 99

CHAPTER 3

legislation out there. We need to repeal laws, not add to them. There are already laws on the books concerning murder, rape, theft, fraud, arson, kidnapping, trespass and other such nefarious activities. Those virtually exhaust all needed legislation. How, then, would “towns decide if they want a pig farm next to the city park?” If the pig farm was there first before anyone else in the neighborhood, it presumably homesteaded the rights to waft obnoxious fumes within or over a certain geographical area. If someone wants to start up a park of a golf course nearby, they must purchase the land from the pig farmer at a mutually agreeable price; then, the owner will move these animals elsewhere. If the farmer refuses to sell, these new ventures must locate elsewhere, given that they would not be viable next door to this negative olfactory generator. On the other hand, if there were residences, or shops, or parks, or golf courses already located there, and someone wanted to set up a new pig farm nearby, laws against trespass, again, 1830s, not 1890s style, would soon enough put paid to any such venture. Ditto for banning “a business that will blow toxic smoke across town…” As I have argued, in the 1830s, the laws already on the books against trespassing were usually interpreted correctly, and “toxic smoke” was dealt with, not perfectly, but at least satisfactorily. I propose to postpone wrestling with you over the very important question of whether or not “the North American Indians have the right to take back pretty much the entire country” to a chapter in this book where it is more germane, than this present one on the environment. I am puzzled by your equation of “natural resources” by which I presume you mean fauna, flora and minerals, with “our relatives.” I don’t know my family tree perhaps as well as I should, but I would be surprised, very surprised to find any lima beans, elephants or platinum amongst my forebears. Indeed, I don’t know anyone who has any of these items as a cousin, aunt, grandparent, etc. Is this some sort of poetic license on your part? If so, why do you employ it? If not, do, please, Four Arrows, clue me in to what you could possibly mean by this. Wait, I suppose chimpanzees are our relatives, if you go far back enough into history, and, maybe, even lima beans, if you way further back. Surely this is not what you mean? The courses I took in on this subject at college are now a bit hazy in my mind, but, I don’t think that platinum was ever one of our biological antecedents, no matter how far back in time you go. With regard to running out of resources, I fear we are passing each other as ships in the night. I mentioned that bet between Ehrlich, who took precisely this position, and Simon who vehemently denied it. Evidently this did not at all convince you. I wonder why. Did I say “that Earth’s resources are unlimited?” If I did so, I was in grave error, and I thank you for correcting me on this mis-statement of mine, if I did indeed make it. (Perhaps you could cite me to this effect?) I do not at all maintain that our planet has an infinite amount of resources. But, it is rather large. According to Reisman (2001, p. 50): Even if we limit our horizon exclusively to the planet earth, which certainly need not be our ultimate limit, the magnitude of natural resources supplied by nature is mind-bogglingly huge. It is nothing less than the entire mass of the 100

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

earth and all of the energy that goes with it, from thunder storms in the atmosphere, a single one of which discharges more energy than all of mankind produces in an entire year, to the tremendous heat found at the earth’s core in millions of cubic miles of molten iron and nickel. Yes, the natural resources provided by nature in the earth alone extend from the upper limits of the earth’s atmosphere, four-thousand miles straight down, to its center. This enormity consists of solidly packed chemical elements. There is not one cubic centimeter of the earth, either on its surface or anywhere below its surface, that is not some chemical element or other, or some combination of chemical elements. This is nature’s contribution to the natural resources contained in this planet. It indicates the incredibly enormous extent of what is out there awaiting transformation by man into natural resources possessing goods-character. However, even were we blessed with far less of an endowment, this still does not touch the point I made above: as we start to “run out” of anything, “resource” or not, its price rises. That has several beneficial effects, mentioned previously. And this, alone, will tend to ensure that we will not become bereft of anything. You state that “oil is a finite resource.” I am not enough of a theoretical physicist to know if this is correct or not, if we consider the entire universe. However, it is certainly true, if we limit our scope merely to the very small solar system we inhabit. If governments would stop wasting some half of world’s GDP, we might make some progress in its exploration (Heubert and Block, 2007A, 2007B). Even if it were true that “oil … is no longer being formed,” which, strictly speaking it is not (it just takes a long time), it is still irrelevant to the economic point I am making. When and if it becomes less plentiful, its price will increase, obviating the short fall. As well, government is, as usual, implicated in this problem. It has hampered discovery and development in such places as Alaska, and offshore. Yes, there are problems with “fresh water and sewage,” “deforestation,” and with the loss of potential pharmaceutical benefits from the Amazon rain forest, as you quite correctly say. But, note, this is a point for my side of our discussion: these amenities are either under total statist control, or highly regulated by government; they are not entirely in the ambit of free enterprise, the only system I defend. Four Arrows, you take great exception to my characterization of “those scientists who claim there is ozone destruction as ‘critics of capitalism.’” But, perhaps, your attribution is taken out of context. My actual statement was this: “According to the critics of capitalism, the ozone layer has been partially destroyed, due to the use of underarm deodorants and air conditioners, among other things.” Now, is it or is it not true that critics of capitalism do indeed say such things? Of course it is. I think we are failing to communicate with each other on this point because you are attributing to me some perhaps close to what I said, but differing from it in an important nuance. Namely, you are interpreting me as saying, in effect, that scientists are biased against capitalism: “the overwhelming number of scientists in the world that support human caused ozone depletion and climate change are merely a part of some anti-capitalism scam.” But, a careful reading of what I actually said will not support this interpretation. That is, I think we have the subject and predicate inverted here. I was attributing to critics of capitalism a certain viewpoint; namely, that 101

CHAPTER 3

underarm deodorants and air conditioners have hurt the ozone layer. You are translating this into the claim that most scientists are scam artists. I simply did not say that. While we are on the subject, permit me to respond to your view that “the overwhelming number of scientists in the world … support human caused ozone depletion and climate change.” At one time, I might well have bought into this. Now, after Climategate, I must remain agnostic on this matter. As far as I am concerned, the revelations of Climategate have cast into serious doubt the veracity of anything emanating from this community of scholars. Double blind peer refereed publications are the usual basis upon which such summaries are made. But Climategate has cast a pall of doubt on this entire process. Please do me a big favour and do not conflate my positions on anything with those of Rush Limbaugh. There is a wide disparity between his views and mine on most issues. I have enough of a paper trail so that you need not do criticize me through him; you can, instead, undertake this task more directly. I resist the notion of being tied in to the “right-wing.” I am a libertarian, not a right winger, or a conservative, nor a Republican. Michael Moore, is, I suppose, the leftwing liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, the right wing conservative. In return, Four Arrows, I promise I will not drag him in, when I try to distinguish your views from mine. I give you a solemn oath that I will not criticize anything Moore says, and hold you responsible for it. I don’t think there is much misunderstanding between us on intrinsic or instrumental values of humans and animals (plants, minerals, etc). I regard humans as of intrinsic value, and animals (et cetera) as only of instrumental benefit, insofar as they promote human welfare. You, Four Arrows, agree with me that humans are of intrinsic value, but maintain that so are animals. The challenge I put to those who hold this view of yours is as follows. Suppose that you had the choice of saving the lives of two human beings, or the very last breeding pair of tigers, rabbits, kangaroos (fill in whatever non human creatures you want to, here). And, we obviate the case where these other species can be of great future use to human beings, as, for example, enabling us to cure some dread disease. So, it is a choice between a measly two human beings and the extinction of an entire species (or type of rock, or whatever). And, remember, we have an overpopulation problem, at least according to some. For me, the choice is an easy one: save the humans, tough luck on those other life forms or entities. I am very curious as to how you will answer this query. I regard it as a reductio ad absurdum of the animals-have-intrinsic-value position. Four Arrows, you ask, “What would happen if an alien race felt the same way about humans as (I) do about animals?” Rothbard (1998, 156) answers that challenge: What of the “Martian” problem? If we should ever discover and make contact with beings from other planets, could they be said to have the rights of human beings? It would depend on their nature. If our hypothetical “Martians” were like human beings—conscious, rational, able to communicate .with us and participate in the division of labor, then presumably they too would possess the rights now confined to “earthbound” humans. But suppose, on the other 102

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours. You follow this up with yet another very important series of questions: “Why do you want to prevent animal or plant extinction?… How do you select which creatures go to the barnyards? Is keeping a few tigers around important to you simply for entertainment purposes? And where did your anthropocentric view come from?” I want to prevent extinction of animals and plants because they are of instrumental value for human beings: for food, clothing, shelter, medicines, entertainment, information, education. I do not wish to select which animals go to barnyards (for safekeeping). Rather, the market does this. Those entrepreneurs who act more effectively in the support of human welfare in this regard earn the most profits. Those who forecast consumer desires relatively poorly go broke. No, tigers offer much more than entertainment; see list immediately above. My anthropocentric view emanates from the libertarian philosophy, which is predicated on man’s rights, not those of other creatures. Let me offer a slight emendation to the “do no harm policy” you accurately state unites us. A better way to articulate this is “do not violate rights,” or, “do not initiate or threaten violence against another person or his property,” the libertarian maxim. What is the problem with putting this sentiment in the form of a ban on “harm?” It is that there are ways in which we can indeed “harm” other people without violating their private property rights. For instance, the competition between bakeries I mention above. I cannot join with you in your disparagement of the “quarterly profit report.” If it is a healthy one, and it was earned without rights violations (e.g., polluting other people’s property), then, according to the invisible hand doctrine I support, this is an indication of mutual coordination between economic actors, and a healthy environment. Under these assumptions, it is my view that a black balance sheet is an indication of ecological health, and a red one an signal of environmental dissipation. I think it would be better to put off a discussion of “the current monetary system,” “the disparity between haves and have nots” until a more appropriate chapter. As to “corporate influence,” I suspect there is already more than a little agreement between the two of us. I regard what happened during the progressive period with regard to air pollution as an exercise of precisely that phenomenon. I am agnostic on “hierarchical structures.” If they are voluntary, I support them. If coercive, then I oppose them, but not because of the hierarchy; rather, due to the coercion. There is, possibly, nothing more hierarchical than the relationship between the orchestra conductor and the wind player. The former dictates to the latter when to breathe. Even the slave master, the concentration camp guard, did not go so far. But, because no one is forced to join a musical group, this sort of hierarchy is totally benign, in the libertarian view. I have not yet heard of any “negative repercussions 103

CHAPTER 3

the free market is currently causing.” All examples I have ever heard put forth to illustrate such a charge, emanate, instead, from interferences with the capitalist system. I defy anyone to offer even one instance of this. Such an insight, in my opinion, must be a large part of the “higher consciousness” you are calling for, Four Arrows. I very much think “that this dialogue, and its commitment to cooperative argumentation, is still on target.” I have not been convinced by you to change my adherence to free market environmentalism in any substantial way, but that is not part of the criterion for the success of our venture. We need not agree with each other at the end of the day. Nor, must we compromise our positions with those of the other guy. If one of us says that 2+2=4, and the other that 2+2= 6, we do no one or anything any good if we both come to agree that 2+2=5 is actually true. No, we can each stand firm on our respective principles if we wish to do so. However, we are committed to reading the other person’s section of each chapter carefully, and, with a view toward, in addition to debating, also putting the most positive spin on what the other of us is saying, and attempting to really understand that in a sympathetic manner. This, I think, we have both done in this chapter, despite the fact that there was little if no movement in the direction of the other’s position on the part of either of us. Maybe this will change in future chapters. Even if not, I think we still can both remain true to the animating philosophy of this book. Four Arrows: Although there may not be much movement toward one another’s positions, I think a greater understanding has occurred with room for much more of course. I had really hoped we might close this chapter and move on. However, you have asked me a number of questions. I do not think they were rhetorical and accept them as a sincere effort on your part to understand my view. In answering them, I think we will continue to better understand one another and our readers will gain a deeper comprehension of both our perspectives. This, after all, is our book’s goal. With such an understanding, continuing discussions about things that matter in the realm of social and ecological justice (violence prevention) are more likely to take place in higher education. (You say you so far have not moved from any of your early positions. I hope that at least you now agree to this being a worthy goal for education as you see it for this book.) In any case, I will reply to your queries. However, I will do so as briefly as possible, for an entire chapter could be easily devoted to each issue I address. I do hope, however, that you can bring the chapter to a close after my comments with your final words (and save future questions for the next chapter!) Before I go through the following list of your comments/questions, I want to begin by saying I am truly beginning to understand your views better. I think that because versions of your assumptions are largely behind the things we both oppose, such as corporatism, cronyism, pollution, extinction, war, U.S. international hegemony, etc., it is also vital for our readers to better understand them. I hope you will agree that many of your beliefs are selected to rationalize such “economic” policies under the banner of “free market capitalism” even though they may violate some the principles of your brand of libertarianism. So, although we may seem as if we are 104

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

“speaking two very different languages,” trust me when I say that I am beginning to comprehend yours. I have less confidence that you will ever understand mine, but I won’t give up. Perhaps this book will provide a sort of “reliable dictionary with which to translate what the other guy is saying” for the political polarities that divide our world. (1) You ask me, “Do you really believe that nothing worthwhile can ever arise out of such selfish motives?” I did not and never would write such a sentence as this question implies I might have. Of course self-serving motivations can have worthwhile outcomes, including those of great benefit to others. I am only saying that such incentives, especially in the form of acquiring monetary profits, can also lead to negative outcomes and significant harm to others. Thus, to make the profit motive the exclusive motivation in life, as you seem to think it should be, was problematic for me until I learned that your position is not based in reality. (“Yes, I agree; laissez faire capitalism is utopian in the sense that it has never been perfectly implemented. We have come close to it… even the early U.S., if you abstract from slavery (italics mine)... But, no “cigar.”) This explains why history has not supported your ideas and why a number of your prospects for the future are so impractical, such as thinking that any form of a brand on a whale could offer a process for successfully litigating against someone who has killed and processed it thousands of ocean miles away from its electronic pen. However, if this book’s dialogue is to have any true meaning, we must continue to better understand whether your idealistic fantasies are more worth pursuing than those you castigate (like mine) or if a combination may be best for the future of our world. (2) In spite of your admitting that your philosophy is about what might be, you continually seem to ground it as though it is working in real life. I think this is why I and others see so many contradictions in libertarianism. (Google the words “libertarianism” and “contradiction” and you will see what I mean.) The first one that pops at me relates to your beautifully put phrase, “privatization spells life, running free is a death knell.” How can someone who is all for freedom be so against it? Another example that relates to a question you have for me is about why I don’t accept the bet between Simon and Ehrlich as some sort of evidence that there is not an overuse of “resources.” Without going into the problems of replacing wild fisheries with farmed ones, I will only point out here one apparent contradiction in your own thinking on this. One of the claims you use to support your philosophy is that scarcity is largely an illusion. I assume you do not mean this theoretically in the future if your values are implemented, so I now turn to your admitting that resources are not unlimited. (“Did I say “that Earth’s resources are unlimited?” If I did so, I was in grave error.”) How can you know when a particular resource is at risk? You certainly are not looking at the science, whether we are talking about oil, water, top soil, or any number of creatures or plants that might be the key 105

CHAPTER 3

to cancer treatment. Another contradiction is when you say it is wrong for a shrimp farm to harm property in which “it has no property title” but then say it is the government’s fault, not industry’s, for letting the Cuyahoga River catch fire. Industry did not hold title to the river, so why are they not in the wrong? Is the distinction that the river was not privately owned sufficient to acquiesce in the harm done to those downstream? You do not blame free enterprise because you say the factories were not practicing your version of it. What then were they practicing? If we must wait until humans implement your ideas (which you say will probably never happen); if it required grass roots activism and the Clean Water Act to clean up the river; if you admit the factories were wrong in polluting the river to increase short term profits (unless it was OK because no one owned the river); then is such violence against others acceptable until private ownership of rivers and oceans occurs and then somehow prevents such violence? (You say, “In my view, that conflagration would likely not ever happened had a private firm owned the entire waterway.”) If my questions seem convoluted, I submit it is because of the nature of your arguments I am trying to address. (3) In response to my claim that National Parks are presently better taken care of than if they were divided up into private properties, you ask me “What evidence can you offer to back up this claim? I find it difficult to believe they do a “fair job” when they cannot go broke and be forced to give way to better management if they fail…” My evidence is to ask you to show me where else there are such large tracts of relatively unspoiled land and game, save a few private hunting clubs here and there that can be enjoyed by most people. (4) You ask me why I claim that most reforestation projects that use monoculture replacement of deforested areas are an environmental catastrophe. You say, “If they “finish off the destruction of biodiversity” on their own property, and biodiversity helps with the bottom line,” they will go out of business and all will be well. Not at all! Biodiversity loss is what makes this practice a catastrophe (as well as a long list of other environmental problems easily researched). However, the problem with your logic is that loss of biodiversity does not hurt the quarterly profit report, which you support against considerations of the seventh generation (which you previously did not understand). Furthermore, loss of biodiversity on one’s “own property” still does violence to others. (I am still confused as to whether you feel this is OK if the others, whether people or buffalo, are neither property owners or are owned property. (The subject of slavery keeps popping into the conversation somehow). (5) Although not a question of me per se, your response to a question of mine deserves rebuttal. You say I misunderstood your dismissal of the climate change scientists. Now you say, “I was attributing to critics of capitalism a certain viewpoint… namely, that underarm deodorants and 106

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

air conditioners have hurt the ozone layer. You are translating this into the claim that most scientists are scam artists. I simply did not say that.” Then you say, you “seriously doubt the veracity of anything emanating from this community of scholars” since Climategate. First of all, my claim was that you denigrate the large number of scientists who do say that such things as freon and other pollutants for which humans are largely responsible are harming the atmosphere as being motivated by their anticapitalism sentiments. You say it again in your new version in referring to them as “critics of capitalism” which is highly unlikely. As for Climategate, it is absurd to dismiss tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of thousands of papers because of a small group of scientists exposing their stupid political and territorial inclinations, which are all too common in any scientific field. This isolated example of subjective emails does not come close to discrediting the large number of research institutions making claims about climate change and coming to a consensus after decades of research. (6) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you say you are “puzzled by your equation of ‘natural resources’ by which I presume you mean fauna, flora and minerals, with “our relatives.” You ask me if I’m serious and offer jokes about your being related to platinum. As you initially felt insulted when I referred to libertarianism as a sort of fundamentalist religion, I now feel put off by your making light of a legitimate debate between those who believe that nature (including plants, minerals and animals, etc.) is only utilitarian for human use, and those who believe it has inherent value as well. As an economist you surely must be aware of the very rich literature from centuries of debates over this question. To dismiss this debate, which in recent years has filled journals of philosophy, psychology, physics, zoology, and many other disciplines with such humor and puzzlement is, well, puzzling. To dismiss an entire worldview, one that is held dearly by Indigenous Peoples around the world is more than puzzling, however. It is typically denigrating and something I have attempted to respond to in many of my published works, such as a recent publication in the Online Journal of Critical Education at the University of British Columbia entitled, “Anthropocentrism’s Antidote (2010).” Although I hope our student and faculty readers will seek them out, I will not quote from the many scientific, philosophical and theological positions in behalf of claiming that animals, plants and minerals (and earth itself) have intrinsic value independent of humanity. I will answer your secondary question, however, about your “reductio ad absurdum” choice of whether I would choose to kill the animals or the humans. (The only thing absurd I see in the example is the example itself, by the way.) My answer is that giving intrinsic value to something does not automatically mean it is not subject to one’s harming it. You place intrinsic value on humans but allow for them to be imprisoned, executed perhaps, etc. Life requires choices to be made based on many variables. I think there are indeed numerous people who would sacrifice 107

CHAPTER 3

themselves to save an entire species from extinction. To not recognize intrinsic value in nature leads to not finding it in other humans, I believe, and certainly you know of examples if only you refer to slavery once again. In any case, I conclude my reply to you with another reply to your question about what value there may be in plants or animals beyond usefulness to humans with a question for you: What value do you have either intrinsically or otherwise? A corollary to the question is, from where do you get the idea? I mean, human superiority is usually a philosophy derived from religion, yet you are an atheist. Why do you feel humans are the only creatures with intrinsic worth? Walter: I think that your viewpoint on environmental issues is far better known to the general public than is mine. Hence, I have an easier time understanding what you are saying, than you do, me. Before I get to the six points you so ably organized, I just want to pay you a bit of compliment: I have debated with many scholars who articulate your perspective, and, I must say, you stand head and shoulders above them in your ability to defend that position. Certainly, I think that your insightful statements in this chapter, and, hopefully, mine as well, will make a contribution to higher education. (1) I questioned whether you really believe that anything worthwhile can ever arise out of such selfish motives because you are so continually suspicious and contemptuous about profits, selfishness, private business, entrepreneurship, capitalism, free markets, etc. Have we ever, in all of history, enjoyed these institutions in pure form, with no government interference with them at all? Of course not. But, I am at a total loss to understand why that fact would cast aspersions on this ideal. There has never been a society with absolutely no murder or rape, or disease either. Yet, surely, the goals of zero crime and complete good health for everyone are not thereby tarnished, even by one iota. If cows can be branded, then so can whales. The latter are merely bovines of the sea, as far as I am concerned. In the era before barbed wire, cows wandered for miles; whales travelling thousands of miles, today, are the rough equivalent, with improved technology. Yes, there will be whale rustling under this system, as there was cow theft in that bygone era. But this hardly obviates the system, or makes it an “idealistic fantasy.” The unrealistic expectation, it seems to me, is to think that we can better save sea species under present institutional arrangements where they are endangered by the tragedy of the commons. (2) I cannot see my way clear to withdrawing my statement “privatization spells life, running free is a death knell.” It is true, as numerous cases illustrate. I favour freedom for humans, only, not for animals. To me, the Simon Ehrlich bet is pretty definitive. My man won the wager, yours lost it. You call for “evidence” to support my analysis. Yet, when I offer you some, you reject it. I do not at all think “that scarcity is largely an illusion.” If any of my freshmen students said this, I would be mortified (well, after 108

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

the first week of class.) I “know when a particular resource is at risk,” or, better stated, when it is in short supply, because its price will rise. The government, not any private industrial concern, is the owner and manager of the Cuyahoga River. That is why I hold the state responsible for it catching on fire. When the government allows pollution, whether of the air or the water, it is not at all clear to me that corporations are to blame for following the law and engaging in these nefarious activities. If they do not, their competitors will, and they will go bankrupt. Culpability is to be laid at the doorstep of those who promulgate these 1890s rules, instead of the 1830s ones I favour. Companies do not all try to boost “short term profits.” Rather, they aim at maximizing present discounted value. It is, rather, politicians who have improperly short time horizon, usually two or four years. (3) I asked you for evidence in support of your claim that the National Parks are being run efficiently. I note that you offer none. (4) Four Arrows, in your view, biodiversity loss renders monoculture a “catastrophe.” My position is that if it does, and if the loss is confined to the persons responsible for it, there will be an automatic feedback mechanism in place to reduce its incidence. Firms that engage in this practice will earn lower profits. If the harm spills over to others, this is an aspect of initiatory violence, and should be stopped by law (1830s style, of course.) (5) I fear we shall just have to agree to disagree on Climategate. For you, this consists of no more than a few rotten apples, if I can put words into your mouth; well, your word processor. As I see matters, these malefactors were not just a few loose canon assistant professors; rather, they were at the very pinnacle of their profession. They were editors and referees of prestigious double blind refereed journals; they headed up leading institutions and universities; they held high-status professorial posts. My expectation is that these few were the only ones who were caught; like an iceberg, there is more rot, much more, below the surface. The whitewash with which these leading rogues have been treated lends credence to this suspicion. Their very eminence further supports this contention. When the putrefaction is found at the head, it is rare that the body is healthy. (6) I deeply regret offending you with my remark about finding metals in our family tree. I am sorry I caused you disquiet. However, you did say, “‘natural resources’ (aka ‘our relatives.’)” Platinum is surely a natural resource. Perhaps my mistake was in taking you too literally. No, wait, I just realized. We are related to natural resources: sand, carbon, other minerals such as platinum, arsenic, etc. So, you were right on this one and I was wrong. Mea culpa. I concede the point to you. The earth really is our “mother” in the sense we are carbon-based. It is not for nothing that at funerals they say “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” I never before saw this, 109

CHAPTER 3

and I thank you for the insight. On the other hand, after having read Rockwell (2000), the most devastating critique of the Gaia hypothesis I have ever come across, I certainly cannot embrace that philosophy. I am surprised at your response to my attempted reductio on the issue of intrinsic value. I posed it thus: “Suppose that you had the choice of saving the lives of two human beings, or the very last breeding pair of tigers, rabbits, kangaroos (emphasis now added to the word “save”).” You turn it around a bit, and characterize it in this manner: “… whether I would choose to kill the animals or the humans (emphasis now added to the word “kill”). Yes, of course, I agree with you when you say many people believe “that animals, plants and minerals (and earth itself) have intrinsic value independent of humanity.” But, please excuse me for finding it despicable to save the lives of animals instead of humans. The thought of two little kids in one room of a burning house, and two eagles in another, and given that he can’t do both, someone rescues the latter, not the former, fairly sickens me. Even worse, far worse, is the thought that you would actually kill two members of your species in order two save a breeding pair of animals. That sounds like murder to me. What happened to SEEJ and violence? I cannot believe that you really mean this. I think you are context dropping when you object to me “placing intrinsic value on humans” on the ground that I would “allow for them to be imprisoned, executed…” as I indeed would. First, you, too, see human beings as intrinsically valuable. We are only disagreeing, I had supposed, as to whether animals, plants, minerals, etc., were also of intrinsic value, or merely instrumental for human purposes. Second, “intrinsic” in the context of environmentalism translates into the claim that members of our species are of value in and of themselves, and not, merely, as a means to other ends. To execute or imprison murderers does not in any way call that into question. I think, in contrast, that this would apply only if I held human beings, all of them (which I do not: there are Hitlers, Stalins out there) to be of inherent value, to pick a different word for this context, that I could not want to incarcerate or kill any of them, no matter their crimes. Why do I feel humans are the only creatures with intrinsic worth? This is part and parcel of libertarianism, which sees as the only punishable evil a violation of human (property) rights. Having responded to these six points, I now end with a bit of summing up. Four Arrows, you haven’t answered my question as to the criteria you employ to distinguish good and bad environmental actions. Nor do I think that you, or anyone else, possibly can. For you are on the central planning side of the economic calculation debate (Boettke, 1991, 1993; Dorn, 1978; Ebeling, 1993; Foss, 1995; Gordon, 1990; Hayek, 1935a, 1935b, 1940, 1948; Hoff, 1981; Hoppe, 1989, 1991, 1996; Horwitz, 1996; Keizer, 1987, 1997; Kirzner, 1988; Klein, 1996; Lavoie, 1981, 1985; Lewin, 1998; Mises, 1975, 1981; Osterfeld, 1992; Pasour, 1983; Reynolds, 1998; Richman, 1981; Rothbard, 1971, 1976, 1991; Salerno, 1990, 1995; Steele, 1981, 1992). You are in effect attempting to employ the same central planning modalities to the environment as the Communists so badly used for the entire Soviet economy; namely, deal with the environment without ecological prices, profits, property rights. In some of my other writings I characterize the position you are 110

ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE

defending as that of the watermelon: green on the outside, and red on the inside. I do so for two reasons. First, the economics. Planning an economy, or an environment, without utilizing the price and profit and loss system, is akin to being at sea not only without a rudder, but also without a GPS, a compass, the guidance of the sun and the moon. It simply cannot be done. For example, we cannot weigh the “benefits” of windmill power in not using oil and coal, against the “losses” of the birds that are thereby killed. There is no objective way to determine whether cloth or plastic diapers are better for the environment; the former require washing, soap, dirty water, the latter, presumably, ruin land fills. Residential recycling saves resources, but requires more transportation for garbage trucks; without some objective measuring device, it is impossible to determine why the former is more ecologically helpful than the latter harmful. Without a market, it is impossible to weigh the safety risks of clean nuclear power against the dirtier, but safer, alternative energy sources. There is simply no costbenefit analysis for this sort of thing without objective measures such as prices, profits; we cannot rely on markets, or prices or profits or losses as a guide in any system favored by left wing environmentalists, such as yourself. Second, the politics. Some people just like to run the lives of others. For a while, Communism appeared to be a good vehicle that was going in this direction (in our economics chapter, I shall try to explain not only why this horrid experiment went belly up, but also why it took so long). But then, with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the fall of the USSR in 1991, the wheels on this particular means toward that end simply fell off the car. Something else was needed. A rallying cry, a flag around which to rally, so as to control the lives of others. I don’t say that socialist environmentalism was born then, it had been around since the days of Malthus, and even before. But it certainly got a big boost at around that time. Smith (1759, paragraph VI.II.42) speaks of the central planner (in my view, whether of the economy, or the environment) as ordering people around as if they were chess pieces, not appreciating that they are human beings, with goals of their own. I have tried to indicate, via the use of Smith’s “invisible hand” that allowing people to do so does not lead to chaos. Instead, as Bastiat (1964) saw, when looking down from the Eifel Tower at the people scurrying around below, that Paris gets fed with no central direction at all. Hayek (1967, 1973) makes much the same point with his “spontaneous order.” You, no doubt, appreciate this when it comes to the environment, apart from human interaction with it. For example, the wolf-deer ratio is remarkably constant in the wild, based on these types of considerations. You simply have no appreciation for the fact that this works, too, in human endeavors (yes, yes, “imperfectly.”) Suppose I were to haul off and punch every person in town in the nose. This would be a case of clear injustice. But, if “everything is connected to everything else,” your motto as far as I can see, then, when I refuse to recycle, or privatize and fence in some buffalo or elephants, or engage in monoculture in my garden (assuming no negative spillovers to other people), or use DDT, which has saved the lives of millions from Malaria, Carson (1962) to the contrary notwithstanding, or buy up all the water in the area, or open up a golf course, or pollute my own 111

CHAPTER 3

lake, you would say that this is equivalent to punching everyone in the nose. That it is impossible for me to confine the deleterious effects of these supposedly anti environmental acts to myself. I am not sure we can bridge this gap. There hasn’t been as much movement toward each other’s position as there has been in the previous chapter. But, that is alright. We never promised our readers a rose garden: that we would reconcile our positions. Only that we would listen carefully to what the other guy was saying, and try to give it as sympathetic interpretation as we could. I fear you have done better than I in this chapter in that regard. This is partially, not entirely due, in my opinion, to the fact that my views are less well known than yours, and thus you had more to learn about mine than I did about yours. I look forward to working on the next chapter with you. Four Arrows’ Final Position: I better comprehend the fallacy of the “view that a black balance sheet is an indication of ecological health” with Walter’s admission that “laissez faire capitalism is utopian in the sense that it has never been perfectly implemented.” Prior to capitalism, our human ancestors did actually live in relative harmony with the environment. These comparative histories reconfirm my view that ecological sustainability/justice requires a less anthropocentric consciousness than now exists. “One of the most profound discoveries of evolutionary biology is the fact that all living species are connected through descent from a common ancestor (Baum, 2008).” Indigenous Peoples, with their animal and plant oriented kinship systems, have understood this for thousands of years. I hope the readers’ understanding of our different views is as enhanced by this chapter as my own. Walter’s Final Position: Free market environmentalism is the last best hope for the planet, for mankind, and for liberty and justice. Yes, our species faces many and serious ecological problems. But, they are all due not to the presence of laissez faire capitalism, but rather either to its complete absence, or governmental interferences with it. I am extremely grateful to Four Arrows for compelling me to make this case much more carefully than I would have been able to do without his often critical but always friendly input. NOTES 1

I would like to thank the following for helping me compile lists of crony capitalist corporations and bankrupt firms: Gary Danelishen, François Guillaumat, Kathyrn Muratore, Murray Sabrin, Ed Stringham, Chris Watson, Chris Westley, Richard W. Wilcke and James Yohe.

112

CHAPTER 4

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

Walter’s Initial Position: Any wealth distribution that emanates from the workings of laissez faire capitalism is a just one; only a wealth distribution that emanates from the workings of laissez faire capitalism can be licit. Four Arrows’ Initial Position: Unjust wealth and income distribution, resulting primarily from declining unionization, falling real minimum wages, dramatic increases in CEO compensation and capital income disparities between the top 20 and bottom 80 percent of society, are associated with the kind of unregulated free market policies that expanded during and since the Reagan administration and correlate significantly with negative social and health consequences. Walter: What is a just wealth distribution? In my view, it is one that results from respect for proper initial homesteading, for resulting private property rights, and, finally, from any legitimate subsequent form of title transfer. Before even discussing my views on its distribution we do well to consider how wealth arises in the first place. For, surely, before it can be distributed, if, indeed, it can be, it has to be earned in the first place. Wealth creation is logically prior to its distribution, and I propose to deal with them in this order. So, what are the sources of wealth creation? An obvious one is availability of natural resources; but Hong Kong has hardly any, and yet it is a prosperous area. Another is navigable rivers and proximity to a major waterway; yet, Montana doesn’t have much in the way of these blessings, and it is doing quite alright, thank you very much. Then there is the question of how hard the people work; from personal experience I can testify to the fact that very few people indeed struggle mightily in New Orleans; we are too busy partying for anything as banal as that. And yet, there is no starvation in the Crescent City; very much the opposite. Education and a very high IQ are also important contributors to affluence; the Russians have this in spades. They first launched Sputnick, and most chess grandmasters hail from that part of the world. And yet they are not doing all that well economically, testimony to the fact that this cannot be all there is to the story (for an alternative view on this, see Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002, 2006). Nor does population density have much explanatory power in this regard. There are very rich highly populated places (Manhattan) but also poor ones (Calcutta); there are poverty-stricken empty areas (deserts of Africa, jungles of South America) but highly prosperous ones as well (Nevada, Alaska). There are rich and poor small and big countries, small islands and (parts of ) big continents. There is but one variable that admits of very few exceptions: economic freedom. There is a strong and statistically significant negative correlation between economic 113

CHAPTER 4

well being and size and scope of government (Gwartney, Lawson and Block, 1996). That is, it really is true that if you want to create wealth, “that government which governs least governs best.” Nor is this any accident. The state cannot rely on the guidance of the profit and loss system. It regulates without any compass. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence for this contention is the comparison of North and South Korea, East and West Germany. Both pair of countries were at one time single nations. They each had the same culture, the same resources, the same level of education, the same average IQs, the same geographical benefits (rivers, ports, mountains, etc.) even the same language. Yet, due to an accident of war, East Germany and North Korea followed one path, West Germany and South Korea a rather different one. The first was earmarked by almost complete government control over the economy, the second by far less. After a few years, the two under communist rule were basket cases. Actual starvation was the fate of the North Koreans, while there was one way traffic in terms of immigration within the two Germanies, and, hint, it was not from West to East. This “voting with the feet” as a proxy for prosperity also applies to Apartheid South Africa and the frontline states: the former was economically freer than the latter, with the paradoxical to some result that black migration patters were in a southern, not a northern, direction. If Communism was so bad in terms of economic development, why did it last for so long a time (from 1917 to 1991)? This is because, wisely, the Soviet Authorities quickly abandoned the pure Communism of their New Economic Plan days (1920–1923), and (somewhat) softened the rabidity with which they pursued their plans. That, plus the existence of life saving black markets within Russia, and the availability of western prices, so that their central planning had at least a veneer of rationality, was responsible for the longevity. It is no accident that the Industrial Revolution first took place in England, with its then tradition of laissez-faire capitalism. This was the burst of creative energy that catapulted the human race out of its medieval squalor and into the modern era of trains, planes and automobiles, of iron, steel and coal, of modern medicine and health, of movies, computers, television, air conditioning, refrigeration and other conveniences we now take for granted. It was the Industrial Revolution that enabled the British Empire to become one on which “the sun never sets.” Nor is it to be doubted that when this country embraced socialism and corporatism in the twentieth century, its influence would ebb. With this short introduction to wealth creation, we are now ready to address the issue of distribution: how do people get to own things? The first element is homesteading: turning unowned virgin land (and other resources) into private property. How is this done? By mixing one’s labor with territory never before commercialized (Block, 2002; Block and Yeatts, 1999–2000; Block vs Epstein, 2005; Bylund, n.d.; Hoppe, 1993; Kinsella, 2003, 2006; Locke, 1948; Paul, 1987; Rothbard, 1973, 32; Rozeff, 2005). One ploughs some earth, seeds it, takes in a crop, and thus becomes the rightful owner of it. Or a man captures and domesticates a wild cow or horse, and then claims it as his own. For how many years must the farmer grow crops before he can be said to have completed the homesteading process? How intensive does the planting have to be? One corn stalk 114

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

every square foot, yard, acre, mile? This depends upon the culture and the historical practices. Usually in a fertile area, the farming has to be more intensive than in a dry place. Just how well trained does the barnyard animal have to be before ownership rights accrue? At the very least, the cattleman must be able to control his property. So, the oil explorer gets to own the black gold he discovers, the fisherman is the rightful owner of his catch. The worker owns his person, because he has in effect homesteaded it; by mixing the product of his body, his labor, with other things, he becomes the owner of them, too. Second, any voluntary interaction is sufficient to change property titles. The corn farmer and the cattleman trade. The former now owns milk, even though he did nothing to produce it, and the latter is the rightful proprietor of corn, although he did not plant or harvest it. But, each owns this new item based on a barter arrangement to which they both agreed. Other legitimate title transfers include gifts, gambling, inheritances, private charity, etc. In the libertarian philosophy, there is no such thing as “distribution.” It is not as if there are two processes: production, and then, separately, distribution. Rather, the very process of creation of wealth and trading it comes together in a package with “distribution”: the people who produce something are the legitimate owners of it. Period. The two are intrinsically and necessarily connected, on a one to one basis. You produce it? You own it. You homestead it? You own it. You trade for it at a profit? You own it. Any “distribution” that takes place after people produce, create, buy, sell, rent, however they (honestly) earn their money, is called “theft.” The stock market investor is the licit possessor of the profits he earns in this capacity, and the same goes for the labourer, the prostitute, the entrepreneur, for everyone who participates in peaceful marketplace activities. Let us now consider some implications of the above, and objections to what we have said so far DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY OF MONEY

It is said that the first dollar a man has provides him great utility. For example, he purchases something of great importance to him, say, food. The second dollar is also important, albeit slightly less so; he can buy clothing with it. Similarly, for the third dollar which is expended upon shelter; it, too, is important, but not so much as the first two dollar’s worth of goods. By the time, however, he gets down to his millionth dollar, he is using it to light up his cigars, surely a less important expenditure, even from his own point of view. (Were this not so, he would be using some of his first more highly ranked currency to support his tobacco habit.) That is premise one. Premise two is that this is true for all people; we all experience this diminishing marginal utility of money. Here is the nub of the argument, premise three: if we take a thousand dollars from a very rich man, and give it to a very poor man, that is, “redistribute” money from the wealthy to the impoverished, we will increase total utility, the happiness enjoyed by both of them, together. For, the lowest ranked $1000 in the hands of the well to do will likely (necessarily?) bring about less utility, fewer utils, to him, than in the wallet of those who are struggling at the bottom of the income distribution. 115

CHAPTER 4

There are many serious problems with this argument. Even if it were true, the only way to obtain that $1000 from the person of means would be by force (assuming we are not talking about money he does not already donate to the impecunious through charity). But, Four Arrows, you and I have already agreed I think in our discussions of SEEJ, that using violence to attain your ends is impermissible. Another difficulty is that this scheme is part and parcel of the philosophy of utilitarianism. But, this doctrine is a non starter, at least from the point of view of justice. Suppose a “utility monster” is discovered. He gets much more joy out of murdering and eating people, than the misery the rest of us suffer as a result of his predilection (He really “gets off ” on this behavior.) We are supposed to allow, nay, encourage, his vicious and depraved acts as consistent utilitarians, but this is counter intuitive, to say the least. Or, consider the sheriff who has an innocent man in his jail. The unruly mob wants to hang the prisoner without a trial. If the officer resists, many people will die, including the sheriff, the inmate, and half of the rabble. Whereas, if the lawman gives his prisoner over to the gang, only one innocent person dies. Utilitarianism promotes the latter course of action, which is clearly unjust. We posit that the entire world ends right after this scenario takes place, so there are no negative future repercussions upon which the utilitarian might rely. There are also flaws in the specific case under discussion. Who says that the rich man and the poor one are located on the same diminishing marginal utility curve for money? Maybe, the former lies everywhere above the latter? This would mean that Daddy Warbucks gets more pleasure out of lighting his cigar with a $1000 bill than does Bob Cratchit from feeding his starving kids with that amount of money; there is no ground upon which we can rule out this scenario. Moreover, when you take money from Peter at the point of a gun and give it to Paul, we cannot ignore the disutility garnered by the former at being the victim of a theft? How do you factor in the negative effects on incentives to earn income on the part of both of them? Another difficulty is that utilitarian egalitarians typically couch their demands for redistribution in term of money. Let us try out a reductio ad absurdum against them. Since there are also invariably lefties, let us consider redistribution not merely of money (“filthy lucre”), but for far more important things. Suppose we had a machine that could take away 25 IQ points from a person with an IQ of 150, thus reducing him to the 125 level. On the other hand, we do-gooders would then turn around and give what we had just taken by force from the highly intelligent man to a person with an IQ of 75, thus raising him to 100. Would we be justified in doing that? It seems difficult to avoid this horrendous conclusion. Similarly, there are those of us with two healthy functioning eyes. Why not “redistribute” some of these, at the point of a gun of course, to those with none at all. Surely, the second eye is a “luxury?” The first eye accomplishes most tasks, does it not? Keeping the other one around, merely to improve depth perception and peripheral vision (on one side) seems very selfish when there are others who are completely blind. It is akin to the well-off feeding milk to their cat while the poverty stricken do not have any for their children. And, a situation near and dear to my heart: the present mal-distribution of hair follicles. There are some with a full head of hair, while others of us are made 116

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

to suffer with hardly one hair to rub against the other. Surely, this is an example crying out for a “social justice” solution. WHAT ABOUT THE POOR?

It is sometimes thought that without a welfare check, the poor would be consigned to poverty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the situation is just about the reverse: the dole diminishes the well being of the less well to do (Anderson, G., 1987; Anderson M., 1978; Brown, 1987; Higgs, 1995; LaBletta and Block, 1999; Murray, 1984; Olasky, 1992; Rothbard, 1998; Tucker, 1984). It reduces the entrepreneurial focus of recipients. Why get off our rear ends, work hard, save, open a business, when we can relax while being supported by the state, is the attitude all too often adopted by those fall into the clutches of this pernicious system. As well, the pogey breaks up the family. It is said that if you place a frog in boiling water, it immediately jumps right out. But, if you put it in cold water, and gradually heat it up, the metabolism of this amphibian is such that it is unable to leap out and save its own life. For the integrity of the black family, slavery was like boiling water; this curious institution was horrid, or course, but the black family emerged from it pretty much intact. Welfare, however, was a different story entirely. Indeed, the rate of illegitimate children in some predominantly black cities is now so high, it is almost safe to say not that the black family is in trouble, but that there is virtually no black family formation. Why is this? Because the dole payments are greater than the wages paid to young fathers among the disproportionately poor black people (Murray, 1984). We do well to hark back to our analysis of wealth creation at this point. Will making people dependent upon the largesse of others render them more productive? Of course not; rather, such a policy reduces incentives. Will breaking up their families bring about prosperity? Certainly not; instead, illegitimacy is causally correlated with all sorts of indices of despair: unemployment, early school leaving, criminality, etc. Then there is the fact that a myriad of statist policies mitigate against the poor. While the libertarian cannot of course favour taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor, he does not, either, countenance impoverishing the less well off in favour of those with more wherewithal. There are numerous programs that should be repealed, rescinded, since they accomplish this very thing, despite the benevolent intentions which often accompany support for them. For example, rent control, an enactment that makes it more difficult for the badly off to obtain housing; minimum wage laws and unions, which keeps the poor unemployed at higher rates than anyone else; urban renewal, sometimes called “Negro removal,” which kicks the impoverished out of their residences; public housing, which subjects them to all sorts of horrors (Anderson, W.L., 200B; Bovard, 2000; Jacobs, 1961); occupational licensing, which makes it near impossible for them to engage in many types of commercial activities; tariffs which disproportionately and negatively impacts their household budgets; drug prohibition, from which they disproportionately die or become incarcerated; public education, which keeps them ignorant and uneducated. 117

CHAPTER 4

And this is only the tip of the iceberg of the victimization suffered by the poor at the hands of the left liberals (Williams, 1982), to the benefit of the more well off. Government also increases income disparities by helping those at the very top of the income distribution at the cost of those who are located further down. Those corporate capitalist firms mentioned in chapter 2 on the environment are a case in point. When a politician such as Lynden Baines Johnson becomes very wealthy in the course of a life, he does so by impoverishing those from whom he receives the money he banks. In contrast, in the free market matters are very different. Every dollar amassed by someone like Bill Gates enriched those who purchased his computers. Thus capitalism, or what Oppenheimer calls the “economic means” reduces income disparity, relative to what he calls the “political means” of seizure and redistribution, which widens it. REPARATIONS

The reparations issue is a contentious one. Scholars on the left (Robinson, 2000) favour it with few if any reservations at all, while those on the right (Horowitz, 2000, 2002) reject it root and branch. Libertarians, on the other hand, take a more nuanced view with regard to it (Alston and Block, 2007; Block, 1993, 2002; Block and Yeatts, 1999–2000). What is the libertarian case for reparations? It is simply this: if property rights are to be respected, stolen items must be returned to their rightful owner (as but a small part of the punishment that libertarians would impose on criminals.) If A steals X from B, then, certainly, when A is apprehended, the X should be forcibly transferred back from A the thief to B the rightful owner. But suppose A gives X to his son, A’, before he can be brought to the bar of justice. B’, son of B, sees A’ in possession of X and sues to collect X from B’. Is it a proper defense on the part of A’ to say the he never stole X from anyone, but rather received it in the form of an inheritance from his father, A? Of course not. A did not have the right to transfer X to A’, since A was not the rightful owner of it in the first place. Rather, assuming that B would have bequeathed X to his son, B’, the latter is the rightful owner of X. Does it matter that it is, now, B’’’’, great, great grandson of B, who is seeking this self same X from A’’’’, great, great grandson of A? Not one whit. For, there can be no such thing as a legal statute of limitations on justice. True, there is a natural statute of limitations on all such matters: the burden of proof always rests with he who is attempting to alter present property titles, the progeny of B in the case we are considering. And, the further back in history the original theft took place, the more difficult it is to offer any such proof. Memories fade away with time, as does evidence. This is particularly true of cases where there was no written language, no published contract, bill of sale, title to X, etc. Note that for the libertarian, grabbing money from all and sundry in behalf of the children of long ago victims is simply not on. No, the only justification for reparations is the return of property, stolen a long time ago. But, this means that the X in question has to be taken from specific people who now hold illicit title to it, and given over to those who can demonstrate that had there been no injustice in the earlier epoch, they would now be the owners of it. Namely, that they have better title to it than the extant owners. 118

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

What kind of reparations could be demanded in the slavery case? Here, the X, that which was stolen, was (at the very least) the labor of the Africans who were kidnapped and brought in chains to the U.S. But, these services are long gone. How, then, can any reparations be justified on the basis of slavery? It can be done on the basis that had full justice occurred in 1865 at the end of the War of Northern Aggression, the slave masters would have been severely punished for the crime of kidnapping, false imprisonment, torture, assault and battery, slavery, murder, etc. In all likelihood, those guilty of these crimes would have been executed. What would have happened to their property, in many cases vast plantations in the South, but in the North too? Why, it would have been turned over to their victims¸ the now ex slaves. These lands, buildings, bank accounts, etc., in justice, should have been given to the victims of this pernicious system. Instead, after the demise of this generation, the X was given to the children and grandchildren of the slave masters. Justified reparation would consist of seizing this wealth from the A’’’’s, and turning it over to the B’’’’s. Note, that in the above explanation, the words “white” and “black” nowhere appear. This is because skin color is irrelevant to justice. Yes, most of the slave masters were white, but not all of them were. And, the overwhelming majority of slaves were black, but some were not (they were Indians). Is the transfer of wealth in this manner to blame children for the sins of their fathers? Of course not. We are not holding the progeny responsible for the crime of slavery. We are only insisting that they turn X, which should not have been given to them in the first place, over to its rightful owners. To criticize supporters of reparations such as Robinson (2000) would be like shooting fish in a barrel. It is necessarily awkward for any leftist who is at the very least ambivalent about private property rights more likely bitterly opposed to them, to favour reparations, which constitute the return of stolen private property rights. It is difficult to favour the return of something you are not sure ought to exist in the first place. So, instead, I consider Horowitz (2002), who offers telling points against the Robinsonian type case for reparations, where all modern day citizens, especially all whites, owe a great debt to all blacks. “Assuming there is actually a debt, it is not at all clear who owes it…. It was not whites but black Africans who first enslaved their brothers and sisters.” Horowitz is absolutely correct in this contention, and is supported in this by Gates (2010) and Crouch, (2010). But Horowitz errs in thinking it would be improper to demand that “reparations … be assessed against the descendants of Africans and Arabs for their role in slavery.” The obvious (libertarian) answer is, Of course it would be! The “social justice” advocates claim that “only whites benefited from slavery.” Horowitz demurs. However, for the libertarian, in contrast, it matters not at all “who benefited” from anything. They key, instead, is who violated the non aggression axiom? The gun manufacturer “benefits” from drug prohibition (more pistols are sold), but he is hardly, therefore, responsible for this legal outrage. Suppose that C kidnaps D, and it is later proven (don’t ask how) that had C not done this, D would have been hit by the proverbial bus, and killed. So, C “benefited” D. Does this mean that the former is not guilty of a crime against the latter? Of course not. 119

CHAPTER 4

Horowitz mentions “the descendants of the 350,000 Union soldiers who died to free the slaves.” Well, actually, the North waged war against the South not over slavery, but, rather, secession, tariffs and other economic issues. In the view of Lincoln, had the Confederate states agreed to stay in the Union, there would have been no need for any war (DiLorenzo, 2002; Gordon, 1998; Hummel, 1996). However, Horowitz scores heavily against Robinson regarding the children of post slavery immigrants to the U.S. It is difficult to see why they would owe the descendents of black slaves anything at all. On the other hand, Horowitz does not seem to grasp the elemental justice of the libertarian analysis of reparations. He seems to think that return of stolen property is justified, only, when it can compensate the actual victims of theft, and not their children and thus presumptive heirs, as in the case of the payments to the Jews from Germany and the Japanese-Americans from the U.S.: “The Jews and Japanese who received reparations were individuals who actually suffered the hurt.” Horowitz also offers up the red herring of rich black people, such as Oprah Winfrey. What?! Wealthy people cannot be victimized by theft? If Oprah is the descendent of a black slave, and she can prove it, and demonstrate which owner of a plantation now holds title to plantation land that she would have inherited had justice prevailed in 1865, then she is entitled to reparations no matter how well off she now is. Egalitarians may wish to penalize wealthy people who have earned their incomes honestly, but libertarians certainly do not. Nor is it a matter of the slightest concern that black claims will be resented by other ethnic groups. If they are also entitled to reparations, they should receive them as well. What of the Horowitzian contention that blacks have already received reparations through such things as the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, the Great Society in 1965, massive welfare payments of which this community received a share disproportionate to its numbers, “affirmative action” (racial preferences), etc. This is a blow to the solar plexus of the “social justice” reparations advocates, but does not at all impact the libertarian case. Remember, in this philosophy, the only justified reparations are from the grand children of the thieves to the heirs of the victims. None of these programs fit that bill; to add insult to injury, they also harm their supposed beneficiaries, as well as the populace as a whole, in that they decrease freedom of association. Further, other groups – Jews and Japanese-Americans – were given reparations with no strings attached. Why should blacks be any different? What about “the debt blacks owe to America – to white Americans – for liberating them from slavery.” Does this cancel the right of black people to reparations? Not a bit of it. For one thing, the Americans (white and black) should never have enslaved anyone in the first place. The (mainly) white abolitionists certainly deserve credit for their actions; they are a credit to the memory of “dead white males.” For another, despite this fact there are the great grandchildren of (mainly but not solely) white plantation owners who still owe the great grandchildren of slaves a debt. Horowitz’s final shot across the bow of reparations is “recognition of the enormous privileges black Americans enjoy as Americans, and therefore of their own stake in America’s history, slavery and all.” Yes, yes, this cannot be denied. Modern American blacks are significantly better off as a group than the children of 120

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

those who remained in Africa. But that this should cancel debts owed by individual (mainly white) Americans to other individual (mainly black) Americans would only be apparent to a racist collectivist such as this author. Four Arrows: Walter, as you will see, my position statement is grounded in reality and supported by historical evidence. On the other hand, did you not admit that the kind of laissez faire capitalism you are advocating has never existed? I have been looking at a variety of pro-free market and libertarian arguments on the Internet, too many to bother citing here, and it seems to me that they, like yours, admit that pure free market capitalism does not exist and that markets are never stable. However, the proponents use examples of how relatively free markets have positive outcomes to support their philosophy and counter examples that refute it by merely saying these show that the system is not pure enough. I grant that there is some value in offering ideas about an imagined future, but please help me to understand what is just and licit about statistics such as these in light of my arguments that follow and from where in your imaginary world you draw your evidence: In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7% (Domhoff, 2010). I refer to the concept of “justice” because you refer to it in your position statement (and, of course, because this is what our book is supposed to be about). Reminding me of our agreement that justice relates to an absence of violence, you imply that a more equitable sharing of income must somehow relate to a form of violence whereby the more wealthy are “forced” to share their wealth or income with subordinates. (“The only way to obtain that $1000 from the person of means would be by force.”) Why would you make this assumption that “violence” would be required? Whether or not you agree that the above statistics represent an injustice, are you calling the ability of unions to occasionally negotiate a more equitable salary or safety/health package an act of violence? Speaking of unions and your disparagement of them, I just now heard on the radio that the non-union Massey Energy Corporation mining explosion that killed twenty-five employees offered to pay ninety million dollars to the families of the deceased, ostensibly to prevent the likely forthcoming class action law suit from costing the company even more. If the company had been unionized, it is likely that more upfront costs for safety precautions might have prevented this catastrophe, no? How is the free market operating successfully here? Similarly, it turns out that the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed eleven workers, might have been prevented by a simple remote “off ” switch (McGreal, Macalister and Gabbat, 2010). Might this have anything to do with the non-union Halliburton 121

CHAPTER 4

organization running the operation? Do either of these problems have some relationship to “free market” policies and the associated attacks on unions over the years? I’ll use these calamities to also question your apparent presumption that only the owners of a company and not the workers produce something. (“Those who produce something are the legitimate owners of it. Period. The two are intrinsically and necessarily connected, on a one to one basis. You produce it? You own it.”) Why do workers not deserve co-credit for “producing” a product according to your thinking? How can you say that the owners of the mine and the oil rig are exclusively the ones who produce the coal and the oil? Considering that their lives are on the line, one might make the argument that the workers are more responsible for producing the product! Given, then, that they are co-producers, how is justice served if there is a disproportionate division of total income or if the workers are subject to preventable risks that the owners are not? And while I’m thinking about recent events, I would like to know if you feel the current economic crises, another representation of an unjust division of wealth, relates to the concept of regulation. Was it too much or too little regulation that caused the illicit and unethical dealings that led to the problem? Too much or too little “free market” applications? And, what about the violence relating to sweat shops in China? James Gross, a labor and industrial relations professor at Cornell, claims that the decline in union power is also a critical factor in outsourcing (Domhoff, 1990, chapter 10). There is no Domhoff 1990 in our reference section All of this seems to turn upside down your apparent argument regarding income redistribution being an example of violence. A successful struggle for a fair share of income is not a form of violence, even if supported by trade unions, government regulations, laws, taxes or cultural imperatives. Rather, the real violence stems from the power and greed of those who use free market ideology to stifle more equitable conditions for their workers. This is true now and was equally so during the heyday of private enterprise in the last third of the 19th century when business cycles were volatile. Perhaps a class-action lawsuit against BP and Halliburton will prove this hypothesis in a court of law! I do not think you will argue that the income difference between CEOs and janitors is a natural outcome of free markets, nor a by-product of government regulation. (Although I’m not sure.) From what I have learned about your libertarian position thus far, I might guess that you will say this is a “corporate cronyism” problem. If so, I want to understand how this is not being supported by movements toward your brand of capitalism. CEO salaries have nothing to do with competition for services or creating wealth. Retired CEO of DuPont, Edgar S. Woolard, Jr. who was Chair of the New York Stock Exchange’s executive compensation committee, describes these rationales “as a joke” in the New York Times (Morgenson, 2005, Section 3, p. 1). Here is how it works, according to Woolard: The compensation committee [of the board of directors] talks to an outside consultant who has surveys you could drive a truck through and pay anything you want to pay, to be perfectly honest. The outside consultant talks to the human resources vice president, who talks to the CEO. The CEO says what he’d like to receive. It gets to the human resources person who tells the outside 122

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

consultant. And it pretty well works out that the CEO gets what he’s implied he thinks he deserves, so he will be respected by his peers (Morgenson, 2005). The board of directors buys into what the CEO asks for because the outside consultant is an “expert” on such matters. Furthermore, handing out only modest salary increases might give the wrong impression about how highly the board values the CEO. And if someone on the board should object, there are the three or four CEOs from other companies who will make sure it happens. It is a process with a built-in escalator. As for why the consultants go along with this scam, they know which side their bread is buttered on. They realize the CEO has a big say-so on whether or not they are hired again. So they suggest a package of salaries, stock options and other goodies that they think will please the CEO, and they, too, get rich in the process. And certainly the top executives just below the CEO don’t mind hearing about the boss’s raise. They know it will mean pay increases for them, too (Ibid). I say in my initial position statement above that income and/or wealth inequality is an indicator of a relatively unhealthy society. One might say that unequal income distribution is thus a sort of violence, and hence, according to our agreement, a social injustice. Thus, the economic system that leads to such ills, in addition to leading to such tragedies as the three examples given above, is an example itself of a SEEJ violation. Talk about taking polar opposite positions! Hopefully we can both somehow reach a more moderate perspective by the end of this chapter. In any case, should you doubt the correlation between the unconscionable income disparity that is largely associated with free market economics and an unhealthy culture, I point you to Wilkinson and Pickett’s peer reviewed article (2006) or their book, The Spirit Level: Why Income Equality Makes Societies Stronger (2009). The article contains a full eleven pages of citations that support their well studied conclusions. Identifying 169 analyses in 155 papers reporting research findings on the association between income distribution and population health, the authors reveal that when inequality is high, so are homicide rates; use of antidepressants and drugs; divorce rates; domestic violence; child abuse; levels of job satisfaction; and disinterest in college education. “So, for instance in the very well established relation between violence and inequality, we are necessarily concerned with a causal chain which runs all the way from the material facts of inequality to the psychosocial effects which lead to violence (p.15).” MORE PRODUCTIVE?

Walter, you ask, “Will making people dependent upon the largesse of others render them more productive?” implying that charity, not violence, is an alternative to violence for big companies if wealth distribution is a goal (I realize the difference between income and wealth but here it can refer to either). Well, if a wealthy business owner or any entrepreneur for that matter wants to head up a firm where the maximum difference between the starting level salary and a CEO’s salary is six 123

CHAPTER 4

times compared to averages in the U.S. of $300–400, then I’m all for it and I don’t think he will negatively affect performance, rather very much the contrary. There are many examples throughout the world, especially in Japan, of such “generosity” in the form of cooperative businesses or other forms of employee owned or shared enterprises. One of the most famous is the Spanish employee-owned cooperative, Mondragon, which started out manufacturing paraffin stoves. This company has grown to 160 employee-owned cooperatives, all unionized, involving 23,000 memberowners, with sales grossing $3 billion dollars U.S. in 1991. In 2009, while Spain’s economy languished, Mondragon Corp.’s income rose 6 percent, to 16.8 billion euros. During the 1980s, when Spain’s unemployment hit 27 percent, Mondragón’s hovered below 1 percent (Schumaker, n.d.).(Statistics show that the Mondragon cooperatives are twice as profitable as the average corporation in Spain with employee productivity surpassing any other Spanish organization. It has its own bank, a research institute, an entrepreneurial division, insurance and social security institutions, schools, a college, a health maintenance system and a health insurance cooperative. All of the aforementioned should serve as a partial argument against your antiunion stance. Unions positively enhance the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers as relates to wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections (Michelle and Waters, 2003). In states with strong unions compared to those with weak unions, there is less crime, more per pupil education spending, more voting, less poverty, more insurance, less workplace fatalities, etc. “Period.” NEW ORLEANS, “TOO BUSY PARTYING?”

You say, “I can testify to the fact that very few people indeed struggle mightily in New Orleans; we are too busy partying for anything as banal as that. And yet, there is no starvation in the Crescent City; very much the opposite.” Talk about living in an ivory tower. I was in New Orleans last year and visited “the other side of town.” Broken down or still abandoned hospitals, many homeless and hungry people, frightened of police, housing costs beyond the reach of people struggling to return home after four years of displacement, renters receiving no federal money as promised, are all part of the things I saw or heard about. Tracie Washington, New Orleans resident, civil rights attorney and president of the Louisiana Justice Initiative, was interviewed in August, 2009 on Democracynow.org, after a clip from President Obama promising to help the “struggling” people of New Orleans. The segment is entitled, “Four Years After Katrina New Orleans Still Struggling to Recover from the Storm:” We’re still suffering in this community, tragically, four years after Katrina, in many cases because of lack of coordination between our state and federal government, because of fumbling by our state government, and, in my assessment, because of outright folly and potential fraud of those individuals who were just trying to get more that they don’t deserve. And we understand that those are brown people, black and Hispanic individuals, who’ve not been able to return (2009). 124

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

NEGATIVE CORRELATIONS AND “BIG GOVERNMENT”

You say, “There is a strong and statistically significant negative correlation between economic well being and the size and scope of government.” The literature indeed generally supports your assertion but there are various ways to define and measure this. Grossman (1988) looked at the size of U.S. government and its effect on economic growth and confirmed a negative relationship but only after an initial positive contribution and only as relates to inefficiency in the quantity of public goods (1988). Peden and Bradley found that “beyond an optimal point” the size of government resulted in a deterioration in productivity (1989, p. 239). I also found a study that shows that life satisfaction is negatively correlated with government spending (Bjornskov, Dreher and Fisher, 2007, pp. 267). However, as relates to SEEJ, there can be higher rates of GDP and inequalities at the same time there is economic growth in spite of the fallacious “trickle down economics” theory from the Reagan years, (also referred to “pissed upon”). In fact, reducing the size of the government actually reduces growth and welfare if reductions in government expenditures are heavily weighted towards reductions in public capital or if the proceeds are not used to reduce capital taxation. In addition, across-the-board spending cuts are not likely to significantly improve growth and welfare (Knoop, 1999). Furthermore, the effect of government size on well-being, according to another study, “depends on levels of corruption and decentralization as well as people’s ideological preferences and their position in the income distribution (Hessami, 2010).” SLAVERY AND REPARATIONS

I’m not sure why you spend so much time, Walter, on the concept of slavery and reparations, especially with no references to the current use of slaves in the world and its relationship to the free market. In any case, I must do my best to give you some information that might save you from continuing to abide by this line of wrongful thinking. First you say, “Assuming there is actually a debt, it is not at all clear who owes it…it was not whites but black Africans who first enslaved their brothers and sisters.” Not so. The white Europeans of the 4th to 9th century traded Balkan Slavs and northern European Christians and barbarians, all who were white (Hochschild, 1999). Most of the trade related to textiles and wood exchanges via shipping, mainly in the Mediterranean. Syrians and Jews played a large role in this business (Pirenne, 1935). In the late 1400s, the Portuguese moved into Africa to develop the slave trade at the mouth of the Congo River. Indeed, black Africans became involved in the process, but were hired by the Europeans to bring them slaves. The greatest horrors of slavery began, however, with the European colonization of Europe, most notably by King Leopold II of Belgium. In any case, Walter, for you to rationalize slavery by saying “blacks are significantly better off as a group than the children of those who remained in Africa” exemplifies a logic not worthy of your great reasoning skills. Would you make the claim that the Indigenous Peoples of North America are better off because post Columbian conquest because most 125

CHAPTER 4

Indians today now have televisions? No need to answer this question, I’m just trying to point out the absurdity of your position. On the other hand, you never told me if American Indians have the right according to your philosophy to retake the land stolen from them? Above you say, “On the other hand, Horowitz does not seem to grasp the elemental justice of the libertarian analysis of reparations. He seems to think that return of stolen property is justified, only, when it can compensate the actual victims of theft, and not their children and thus presumptive heirs…” Am I to understand that you would support a return of United States territories to the original inhabitants? Please clarify. Surely this relates to SEEJ and would give our university students an interesting opportunity for debate. I am wide open for hearing your clarifications, modifications, arguments and counter-points in order to better understand how your position can hold water, but right now it seems like we articulate very different philosophical viewpoints. Walter: Four Arrows, thanks, once again, for a pellucid statement of your views on wealth disparities. Your crystal clear rendition makes it all but impossible for me to misunderstand where you are coming from on these issues. In that way, we can at least achieve real disagreement; and also, better yet, have at least a chance at reconciliation. Without full clarity, there is little likelihood of either occurring. Unhappily, my own writing cannot match yours in this regard, for, I fear, based on your reaction to my opening statement, I have mislead you on more than just a few of these points. Let me list the ways in which we either disagree, or where less than full comprehension has somehow crept in. NON EXISTENCE OF FULL LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM

Yes, you are quite correct in pointing out that “the kind of laissez faire capitalism (I am) advocating has never existed.” Governments have, from time immemorial, interfered with economic and personal liberty. But, again, I fail to see how this gets us any further along in our discussion. Perfect health, perfect chess games, perfect horse riding, perfect swimming, perfect mathematics, perfect communication, none of these things have ever existed either. And, yet, no one would be rash enough to say that it is foolish, or silly, or invalid, to aim at these goals. We are simply not in the Garden of Eden. In this vale of tears, nothing in its “perfect” state ever exists. The undoubted fact that full laissez faire capitalism has never existed, nor is ever likely to, does not by one bit undercut its merits, any more than in these other cases. You say that markets are “never stable.” I am not exactly sure of what you mean by this, although it appears that this is yet another criticism of the free enterprise system. Suppose people decide they are too fat, and go on a diet. This means they will purchase less chocolate, and more carrots. The price of the former will fall, that of the latter will rise. There will be greater profits to be earned in the provision of rabbit food, and lower ones in the dessert industry. All of this shows the market as not being “stable.” But, what is wrong with that? People change their tastes for hemlines, for car styles, for vacation destinations, entirely new products come on stream, etc. In all such cases, the “unstable” market works things out so that 126

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

resources are allocated in accordance with these changed desires and situations. This is a success, not a failure. Imagine if we had to petition the president or congress to reallocate resources in congruence with our ever changing goals. Wouldn’t that be a gigantic mess, compared to allowing entrepreneurs, through prices, profits and losses, to run the economy? STATISTICAL DISPARITIES

Those statistics of Domhoff ’s you cite sound appalling, at first glance. But in and of themselves they prove nothing apart from the fact that the wealth distribution is not exactly equal. (Nor is it even clear as to what prefect equality would mean. Would sick people have more goods than everyone else? If so, how much more? Who would determine things like this in your view?) In order to demonstrate that his data is “remarkable” you are logically compelled to offer a criterion on the basis of which you can make this claim. You don’t seem to recognize a need to do any such thing. So, let me attempt to do this for you, in a rough back of the envelope manner. I hereby now extrapolate from your claim that it would be acceptable to you (“then, I’m all for it”) if CEO salaries were no more than six times those of the lowest paid worker in the firm. Go out on a limb with me here, Four Arrows, and assume that all CEOs are in the top 20% of the wealth distribution, and all of those with a “starting level salary” occupy the lowest fifth. That is, for example, I now posit that all rich people have $60,000 at their disposal, and poor people have exactly one sixth of that, namely, $10,000. If so, then the top two deciles of this distribution would have 85.7% of the wealth, or six sevenths, and the bottom two would register 14.3% of it, one seventh. But this is almost exactly the same as the 85% – 15% split that Domhoff says is “highly concentrated,” a criticism that you cite approvingly. You ask “what is just and licit about statistics such as these?” My answer is that you are condemned out of your own (and Domhoff ’s) mouth. Your responses as to CEO salaries (six to one is quite ok) are blatantly contradicted by your marshalling of the “evidence” garnered from Domhoff (six to one is horrid). Now, I admit that my calculations are only rough and ready. They might well be in error. For example, perhaps CEOs do not occupy the top 20% of the wealth distribution; or, more likely, the lowest paid workers are not in the bottom fifth, but, may be located in the second from the lowest quintile. Perhaps you don’t want to infer from your remarks about salaries (“then, I’m all for it” if CEOs earn no more than six times those on the shop floor) to wealth distribution (Domhoff ’s statistics demonstrate injustice), and have reason to think these are disanalogies (if so, I’d be curious to hear about this). My fear is that you have not done your homework: you have not specified any criteria which logically imply anything untoward. I was attempting to do your homework for you. If you don’t like what I have done, then, so that I may better understand your objection to the present U.S. “highly concentrated” wealth distribution, please consider supplying this in the next go round. Moreover, I think that I have by now convinced you that the U.S. is at present far from being a libertarian nirvana. Why, then, bring up any statistics about this 127

CHAPTER 4

country, which is part socialist (government ownership of the means of production), part corporativist-fascist (widespread, minute and intrusive regulations), and only the remainder free enterprise? Surely, if you want to show libertarianism in a poor light, you cannot use data from a country that does not well reflect the system I favour. Of course, there are no countries that fully embody laissez faire capitalism. But, others are closer to it than the U.S.: Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, New Zealand, to mention only a few. But, again, the wealth distribution even in the horrendously unfree U.S. matches to an uncanny remarkable degree what I have been able to ferret out of your CEO (six to one) salary discussion. So, why the complaint? Four Arrows, you talk of “the unconscionable income disparity that is largely associated with free market economics.” Then, you offer statistics of the U.S of all places, which is hardly “largely associated with free market economics.” But, why is this pattern “unconscionable?” Unless you offer and defend a criterion of a just income distribution, I think you have no right to disparage any given one. To say that X is improper implies that we know what would be proper. But, you offer no measure of why any specific one is just or unjust. In contrast, I do have an operational definition: any disparity that emerges from the operation of laissez faire capitalism is a just one; none other is. And, I defend it: for this is the only way that a system with no initiatory violence can function. I invite you to provide something of this sort to buttress your viewpoint. You do mention, in your defence, that great income disparity is statistically correlated with high “homicide rates; use of antidepressants and drugs; divorce rates; domestic violence; child abuse; levels of job satisfaction; and disinterest in college education.” But you offer no evidence that this distribution is different from that which would arise from the operation of the free market. Remember, under capitalism, the only way you can become wealthy is by enriching those with whom you deal. Not so under the only alternatives to this system: socialism and fascism. VIOLENCE

Four Arrows, you and I have very different understandings of the concept of violence. Suppose you and I are marooned on two halves of an island, initially endowed with equal amounts of resources (fish, coconuts, wood, etc.) Initially, we are equally wealthy. Every week we get together to trade. We are civilized, so we do not threaten or steal from each other. All of our commercial interactions are strictly voluntary. However, you are more resourceful and harder working than I. While I take siestas which last most of the day, you busy yourself with building a hut, a boat, a fishing net, piling up food for the winter, etc. After a year on this island, your wealth is 100 times mine. Have you thereby committed any “violence” against me? Of course not, I would contend. However, in your view, “One might say that unequal income distribution is thus a sort of violence.” Yes, this is true, if the way your wealth outstripped mine was due to the fact that in the dead of night you snuck onto my side of the island and stole my stuff; or, given that you are younger, bigger and stronger than I, you just grabbed my property while I was looking on, cowering at you in fear. But, Four Arrows, you big bully, you (☺), your view seems to be a per se one: from 128

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

the fact of vastly unequal income or wealth, we can directly infer that violence has occurred. Or, worse, that such inequality is not mere evidence of violence; rather, it constitutes violence. This is something I simply cannot understand. I await an explanation of this contention, since I really do want to better understanding the thinking of people such as yourself who make these remarkable arguments. Please consider in this context this parable: The Ant and the Grasshopper; Old version The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. Moral of the story: Be responsible for yourself! Modern Version The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green ...’ ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, “We shall overcome.” Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake. President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper . The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, 129

CHAPTER 4

just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood. The entire nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it. In sharp contrast, it is my view that if the government entered our little idyllic island, and seized some of your property through taxes, and gave it to me (with, of course, a big rake off for them – it is no accident that the richest counties in the U.S. are mostly clustered around Washington D.C.) then that would indeed constitute “violence.” You ask of me “Why would … (I) … make this assumption that “violence” would be required … (to force) the more wealthy … to share their wealth or income with subordinates?” This is not an “assumption.” This is a fact. No, it is more than that: it is a logically necessary condition. For if the “the more wealthy… (wanted) … to share their wealth or income with subordinates,” there is a course of action open to them: private charity. The fact that government engages in income transfers from rich to poor (most, I contend, are as a matter of fact in the very opposite direction, but that is entirely a different story) shows that the state has decided that these payments are not sufficiently extensive from its point of view, and that only the threat of violence will increase their amount to “proper” levels. Now, you may regard this as a necessary evil, but, surely, you regard it as some sort of evil to point a gun at rich people (those who have earned their money honestly; we stipulate they have not first stolen it from the poor), and compel them to disgorge their hard earned and honestly earned wealth for the use of the poor. If you don’t think that taxes are compulsory, try not paying them and see what happens to you. You state: “A successful struggle for a fair share of income is not a form of violence, even if supported by … government regulations, laws, taxes...” I am really at a loss to understand this. Do you seriously maintain that the threat of violence does not pertain to those who disobey “government regulations, laws, taxes?” Are not our jails filled, and to the brim, with just such people? You say “the real violence stems from the power and greed of those who use free market ideology to stifle more equitable conditions for their workers.” I do indeed, support “free market ideology.” Yet, I am unaware of using “violence” against anyone. Well, when I was a kid I got into a few serious fights, and I do have a brown belt in karate. During the process of earning the latter, I did practice kumite; but I can’t believe that this is what you mean. By “violence” I mean the employment of physical force, as in punching, kicking, shooting. You can’t mean this, I don’t think. So, what do you mean? I also resist your equation of “equitable” with “equal.” To say this is to argue in a circle. It assumes the case for egalitarianism. Yet, you have not yet responded to any of my critiques of this philosophy: diminishing marginal utility of money, the forced transfer of IQ points or eyeballs, utility monsters, etc. 130

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

UNIONS

In my view, the union issue is a complex one. For, there are not one but two kinds of unions: legitimate ones, and illegitimate ones. Thus, libertarians do not oppose this kind of labor organization per se. What both types have in common is this: they threaten that if their compensation is not raised to their satisfaction, they will down tools and walk off the job. Is this a legitimate threat? Of course it is. The basic premise of libertarianism is that force or the threat of force are the only things that are illicit. Any other kind of threat is therefore lawful. For example, the buyer “threatens” the seller that if he does not give him what he wants to purchase, he will not pay for it. The vendor makes a similar “threat”: that if no money is forthcoming from the consumer, well, then, neither will the item in question be handed over. Quitting a job, moreover, is a libertarian right; in its absence, a job turns into out and out slavery. Indeed, the only thing wrong with that curious institution was that you couldn’t quit. Otherwise, it wasn’t so bad: you got to pick cotton, sing songs, eat pretty well as much mush as you wanted… So, the threat of a rank and filer to quit is a legitimate one. But what about conspiracy? It may be alright for one unionist to quit. Fine, let him go. However, if all 500 of them in a company conspire with each other and leave at the same time, why, horrors!, that would be intolerable. This, at least was the thinking of the U.S. courts in the early days of unionism. Labor organizations were improperly banned on this ground, and, even, subject to anti trust structures since they were deemed to be in “restraint of trade.” No. The right to quit is sacrosanct. It is part and parcel of freedom of association; no one should be forced to associate with anyone else against his will, and this certainly includes employment (the hypocrisy of leftists knows no bounds; they support the right of unions to quit en masse on freedom of association grounds; but, also favour the so called Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is a blatant denial of these rights if ever there was one.) So, unions that limit themselves to (mass) quits are fully compatible with libertarian law. If only they had stopped there. But, no. They also engage in one other act which is not at all compatible with civilized behaviour. In addition to “quitting,” they assert the right to forbid competing workers from taking the very jobs they are renouncing. They characterize them as “scabs” and beat them up, cut their automobile tires, and even, in the extreme, murder them through bombings, shootings, knifings. (Yes I know, company goons, Pinkertons, also do this; but their actions are always defensive; in response to union intimidation and violence. If organized labor limited itself to its one legitimate tactic, mass quits, there would never have been any need whatsoever for violence on the other side.) Or, to characterize this in another way, organized labor maintains that they are not really quitting; rather, they are refusing to work until the employer sees sense. And, in the meantime, the firm should not be free to hire other employees to take their places. These scabs are in effect “stealing” their jobs. But this contention will not withstand scrutiny. No one can own a job. Not the employer, and not the employee either. Rather, a job is an embodiment of an agreement between two parties. If there is no accord, no contract in force, then, logically, there cannot be any job. If the workers quit, the employer should be free 131

CHAPTER 4

to hire others, without any union goons initiating violence against the “scabs.” It is a logical as well as a moral monstrosity for people to down tools, leave the factory, and insist they still have these jobs. Consider an analogy in this regard. It is one thing to divorce your wife. Under freedom of association, you have a right to do just that. If not, if you are compelled to continue to associate with her, and your rights have been violated. But it is quite another thing for you and your friends to surround her house, and threaten to beat up anyone else she might want to date. That is exactly what the illicit union is doing. There is one complication, however. In the old days of “blue collar” unionism, physically molesting “scabs” was the order of the day. In the modern era, by contrast, we have moved into the “white collar” institution of labor legislation, such as the Wagner Act. Here, the government will do the dirty work for the union, forcing the employer to bargain with it, to associate with it, whether he wishes to do so or not. In other words, divorce has been removed as an option. The employer is now in effect a slave to the rank and file. Are there any legitimate unions? Are there any, that is, that eschew not one but both of these illicit acts (physical beatings, plus law enforcement to that end)? Once upon a time in my research I thought I had actually found one: the Christian Labor Association of Canada. I asked a representative if its membership would ever assault and batter a replacement worker. He was filled with venom at “scabs,” but said they were a Christian organization, and would “turn the other cheek.” But, he failed the second part of this test: he supported labor legislation that upon pain of violation of the law forbids a firm from “divorcing” its workers and “marrying” others. This may sound excessively cruel to many people. After all, the corporation is seemingly all powerful, and the workers, even if they all pull together, appear relatively weak. If the firm loses a few million, its balance sheet gets a bit red. Whereas, when the employees miss a pay check or two, under free enterprise (no welfare, no unemployment insurance, no nothing of that sort), severe economic misery can be just around the corner. But, reflect, just a minute, as to how businesses get started. They are always, that is, always and ever, initiated by – wait for it: workers! In the free enterprise the only way a new firm can start up is on the basis of an independent person, a non employer (like the two of us on that island mentioned above) spending a bit less than our incomes, saving the difference, and then getting up on our hind legs and hiring someone else. Or, we can get together with a few other people in these circumstances, pool our savings and form a corporation. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. All owners of business firms started out in precisely this manner. Why should they get the short end of the employment stick, if they started up this way and never violated any rights at all while they grew? Why should they be in effect enslaved to their present employees, forced to associate with them against their will? The only answer that anyone has ever given to this question is the Marxian labor theory of value, according to which capitalists necessarily exploit laborers. But that old fallacy has been exploded too many times to bear repetition here. So to answer your question directly, yes Four Arrows, I do indeed maintain that “the ability of unions to occasionally negotiate a more equitable salary or safety/ health package (is) an act of violence.” They do initiate physical violence against 132

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

innocent people (“scabs”). Extant unions are nothing more or less than criminal gangs (Baird, 1990, 2000; Block, 1991, 2010; Evans and Block, 2002; Heldman, 1977; Heldman, Bennett and Johnson, 1981; Hutt, 1973, 1989; Petro, 1957; Reynolds, 1984, 1987; Schmidt, 1973; Shea, 2010; Rothbard, 1993). They should all be put in prison. Four Arrows, you opine the following: “Unions positively enhance the compensation and work lives of both unionized and non-unionized workers as relates to wages, fringe benefits, total compensation, pay inequality, and workplace protections.” I have no doubt that this is roughly true with regard to unionized workers. Most empirical research points to about a 15% gain for this sector of the labor force. But, that is not a point in its favour. Criminal gangs of all types, shapes and varieties gain from their evil deeds. Crime, sometimes, does pay. However, when you say that organized labor benefits non-unionized workers, I would be exceedingly curious to see support for this contention. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. The “scabs” who are brutalized by union goons hardly gain thereby. And, they are typically much poorer (and darker of complexion) than their victimizers. If you truly want to reduce wealth disparity, you will join me in condemning unions. To the extent that they raise wages, they do so not at the cost of the capitalists above them in the wealth distribution, but, rather, by pushing down on those beneath themselves, thus, from your point of view, exacerbating disparities. UNIONS AND WORKING CONDITIONS

You mention the tragedy at the non-union Massey Energy Corporation and ask, “If the company had been unionized, it is likely that more upfront costs for safety precautions might have prevented this catastrophe, no?” In order to answer this, we must briefly discuss the economics (not, now, as before, the ethics) of a union’s demand for more money versus improved safety and other aspects of working conditions.) The best way to explain this is with the following equation: TW = $W + WC Here, TW signifies total wages, $W is money wages and WC stands for working conditions. How is TW determined? It is based upon the marginal revenue productivity of the worker, or, the net amount he adds to production. In equilibrium, which we never reach but continuously approach, these sums would be identical; that is, total wages accurately would accurately reflect marginal productivity. How is the division between $W and WC established? As far as the employer is concerned, he is completely indifferent to this determination. He could care less as to how his total wage bill is divided up between these two aspects of wages. He is happy to allow this decision to be made, entirely, by the workers. His sole concern is the total amount of money he must shell out. Let us take some simple numbers to illustrate this point. Assume all workers in the company have the same productivity, and that this amounts to $100 per some 133

CHAPTER 4

time period. Right now, the employees are given $70 in the form of take home pay, and $30 in terms of working conditions (safety, quality of cafeteria food, air conditioning, bathroom facilities, etc.) But, these workers are all foreigners, who live 10 to a room, and whose goal is to maximize the size of their pay checks, so they can send money home to their families. That $30 spent on WC by the employer is almost an entire waste from their perspective. What would satisfy them most is TW = $100 = $W = $95 + WC = $5. Why would the employer have an incentive to satisfy them? Because if he doesn’t, these workers will be bid away from him, ceteris paribus, by a competing firm which offers them, say, $W = $85 and WC = $5 for a total of only $90. But, this is not an equilibrium situation, either, as these workers are worth $100, not $90, by stipulation. At this point, someone else will bid $91, and then $92 and $93, onward back up to the $100 they can command on the market. But, at each step in this process, the employer who offers a package of very high $W and low WC will be able to outbid others. A similar analysis applies to a firm that is now “stinting” on WC and thus paying too high a proportion of TW in the form of $W. Whether unionized or not, these considerations apply. So, to answer your query, at long last (hey, I’m an economics professor, I have to make detours like this otherwise they’d toss me out of academia) it is not at all likely that “If the company had been unionized, … more upfront costs for safety precautions might have prevented this catastrophe.” In the absence of any reason to believe the contrary, I posit that we have no reason to doubt that the TW paid by Massey was exactly in the proportion of $W + WC desired by its labor force. You also bring up “the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed eleven workers.” I’ll pass on this one, a topic we covered in the previous chapter, except to say that my answer to this should be clear: this tragedy is due to the non ownership of the Gulf of Mexico. I don’t say that under private ownership there would be no oil spills at all; accidents do occur. But, there would be many fewer, given profit and loss considerations. Similarly, I have already discussed Halliburton under the heading of illicit corporations. It seems a bit harsh on your part to now attempt to saddle me with a defence of this particular company. WORKERS PRODUCE NOTHING?

Four Arrows, you “question (my) apparent presumption that only the owners of a company and not the workers produce something. You make this charge on the basis of me saying the following: “Those who produce something are the legitimate owners of it. Period. The two are intrinsically and necessarily connected, on a one to one basis. You produce it? You own it. Period.” I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. I do not at all believe, nor have I ever said, that workers produce nothing. Were that true, no one would ever want to hire them; they could hardly account for some 75% of the GDP were this the case. Very much to the contrary, the only reason the firm is willing to hire the employee is because of what he adds to its bottom line: namely, his productivity. More widgets are produced with him around than not. Indeed, I aver that this self 134

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

same productivity that you think I maintain to be non existent, is the very source of the wages paid. I ask you to read, again, the quoted material in the previous paragraph carefully. Surely, you will see that it simply does not follow from those statements of mine that I take the position that workers have zero productivity. Forget about workers for the moment. Consider slaves. If they had no productivity, no one would ever want to own one. But, slaves have been bought and sold throughout all of history. Thus, they must have been productive. And, if so, then even the more so free men (if only because the latter need not be guarded). However, I am grateful to you for raising this point. If you misunderstood me, others will, too. This response of mine gives me the opportunity to clarify the issue. Are the entrepreneurs productive? Well, sometimes, when they also serve as managers. But, even when not directly so, their returns still arise from, and are justified by, their role as residual income claimants. What does the employer offer the worker? Why do we have employment in the first place? Why does the owner of a firm keep the profits, the difference between the final selling price and all costs? Why don’t the workers more often band together into voluntary workers cooperatives and “cut out the middleman,” in this case, the entrepreneur? Why are there not more Mondragons? This is for two reasons. First, there is the dimension of time. Say a bunch of workers want to build a factory to produce paper clips. It takes a few months to buy the necessary machines, a place to house them, to purchase the raw materials, to determine placement walkways, to paint the establishment, to plan who is to do exactly what, etc. By the time the first paper clip rolls off the assembly line, as much as a year might have passed. What do the workers do for money in the interim? How do they support their families? Well, they could mortgage their homes, possibly, but very few are willing to do that. Or they could dip into savings. But these might be insufficient. This is one reason why there are so few workers coops. Instead, they go to work for a person who has saved up enough money to undertake all these upfront expenses. There is a second reason, risk bearing. Suppose that after the year passes, and the first of the paper clips show up, the fickle consumer no longer wishes to purchase them, or at least in the numbers previously anticipated by these coop members. Perhaps, the computer has come on stream, and people use far less paper than before. Then, the workers will have lost their investments, perhaps their homes, their entire savings; not too many are willing to take this chance. In contrast, the entrepreneur bears the risk. If he sets up a shop, and hires people for the entire year before the final product appears, and then sales do not compensate him, or the product is a lead balloon, he cannot go to his employees and say, “Hey, sorry guys, guess what, no one wants to buy these paper clips. Please give me back the salaries I have been paying you these last twelve months.” THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISES

Our present depression has nothing at all to do with any “unjust division of wealth.” Rather, yes, it “relates to … regulation; it (was) too much … (not) too little regulation 135

CHAPTER 4

that caused the illicit and unethical dealings that led to the problem.” It would take an entire book to fully explain what I have just said. Fortunately, one has already been written (Woods, 2009) on this very topic. Instead of giving the full book length treatment that your series of questions deserves, I shall confine myself to a brief answer. What is the cause of our present economic malaise? For the Austrian economist, the school of thought to which I adhere (this is not a libertarian question) this is like asking, which government agencies are responsible for our present economic plight? And the short answer is HUD, Fannie and Freddie, and other federal government agencies involved with housing. Due to a mischievous and misbegotten 1992 report of the Boston Fed alleging racial discrimination in bank mortgage lending (an issue to be analysed in detail in a future chapter in this book), it became public policy to encourage people to purchase homes they really couldn’t afford. Banks that followed traditional practice and required collateral, a significant down payment (20%), a good credit rating, continuous and significant past employment, etc., were warned that henceforth this would be considered “racist,” and they would be severely penalized for doing so. As a result mortgages were granted that would have been preposterous under previous more stringent requirements. This debt paper later was pyramided into what later became “toxic assets,” because these were disproportionately non performing mortgages (people were not making contractual payments.) Due to our fractional banking system (a discussion of which would take me too far off our present concerns), this endangered our banking system, and gave rise to the “too big to fail” phenomenon, accompanied by massive and unprecedented bailouts. A more complex response to your question is that the Fed particularly under Greenspan and Bernanke engaged in “illicit and unethical dealings.” They did so by pegging interest rates far too low for far too long via gigantic increases in the money stock. The interest rate is an integral part of any economy. It is a market signal used by entrepreneurs to determine what kind of investments to make. In the event, they were encouraged by artificially low interest rates to place their money in heavy industry, producing long lived products, such as houses and cars. This was the second cause of the bubble. Were any private companies guilty of “illicit and unethical dealings?” Of course this is true. Prime examples include Arthur Anderson and Enron. But, the market automatically punishes this sort of behaviour. Proof? Both these companies are now bankrupt, a fate they richly deserved. In sharp contrast, the Fed, HUD, Fannie and Freddie, are still very much in business; as is the Securities and Exchange Commission, which failed to uncover the decades long fraudulent Ponzi scheme machinations of Bernie Madoff. In the free society there would be no central banks such as the Fed (Paul, 2009); government would adopt a strict hands-off policy with regard to housing. There would be no SEC; its role would be taken over by private rating agencies, not of the ilk of Moodys, Fitch, Standard and Poor, which have become satraps of government (Liebowitz, 2008; Liebowitz and Day, 1998). You mention “the heyday of private enterprise in the last third of the 19th century when business cycles were volatile.” Yes, there was “volatility” in markets then, there always is. However, the swings of the business cycle during that time were caused 136

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

not by “private enterprise,” but came about in spite of this system. Rather, they stemmed from government interference with markets. If you are looking for real business cycle oscillations, cast your eyes on the roughly 100 years since the founding of the Federal Reserve system in 1913 when they were truly gargantuan, not the century before, when they were relatively modest. SWEAT SHOPS

It is very good you raised the issue of sweatshops. It is an integral part of the income and wealth distribution and “social justice” story, and I kick myself for having failed to mention it in my opening statement. In the view of most people, sweatshops are an invention of the devil. They exploit workers in a fiendish way. What are sweatshops? They are factories, usually found in highly impoverished third world countries but not always, where the employees are paid but a few pennies per hour, and the working conditions are appropriate for one of the lower rungs of hell. But a moment’s recourse to introductory microeconomics and a small dose of common sense will show this critique of the free enterprise system to be the merest nonsense. Suppose, Four Arrows, that you and I form a partnership, and open up a sweatshop in a poor country such as Bangla Desh. The prevailing wage there when we arrive with our money bags, is, say, $.10 per hour. What wage shall we offer, if we are to be greeted, as was Kathy Lee Gifford sweatshop mogul extraordinaire, by gigantic line ups of people willing to give their eye teeth for jobs in our factory? Well, we have three choices: we can offer less, more, or the same as the wage now commonly paid. If our opening bid for labor is $.05, what will happen to our dreams for economic empire? Why, they will evaporate. No one will agree to work for us since they can earn double that, elsewhere. Our second bid is to match these customary wages, namely, pay $.10. Here, we will get our fair share of workers, but they will scarcely line up all around the block, in the tens of thousands. No, the only way we can have people actually coming to blows over the prospect of being exploited by us (no, no, a thousand pardons, I meant being on our payroll), is if we pay far more than is available elsewhere, precisely the practice of the Kathy Lee Giffords of the world. Let us suppose then that we put forward a pay scale of $1.00 per hour, a full ten times what is otherwise available in that country. Is there any doubt that we are reducing income disparity? Of course not. We are raising the salaries of the lowest paid workers in the world, and to a significant extent. If this is not a move in the direction of greater equality, something fervently desired by the egalitarians, then nothing is. Are we doing this out of charity? Certainly not. We are profit-seeking capitalist pigs. Oink, oink. We make this generous offer because the productivity of the workers is far in excess of this amount, and our profit stems from the differential between these two amounts. Could we have done more for the Bangla Deshies? Of course. But, we are in business to maximize profits, not to be do gooders. And, as it happens, we have so far done them a world of good (Anderson, 1996; Block, 1976, 2000, 2010; Carden, 137

CHAPTER 4

2004; Cott, 2006; DiLorenzo, 2006B; Greene, Henry, Nathanson and Block, 2007; Krugman, 1997; Powell, 2006A, 2006B; Powell and Skarbek, 2005; Sheehan, 2002; Stepp, 2001; Zwolinski, 2007). Will this be recognized as such by the “progressives” back home? To ask this question is to reveal how silly we are. No, of course not. Instead, we will be roundly condemned for immiserating these poor people, for exploiting them. But how can that be? If it were really so, these people would have avoided us like the plague. Instead, they fight over who will work for us. Even left liberal Keynesian Krugman (1997), who hardly ever met a government regulation he didn’t approve of, nay revere, recognizes this case in behalf of the sweatshop. I hate to cite him in a positive manner, but I simply cannot resist in this one instance. This is just too good. Four Arrows, you are quite right to mention the fact that violence sometimes breaks out in sweat shops. In most cases, of course, it is caused by unions trying to make trouble. Sometimes, however, it is started by management. But this is far from being integral to the essence of the sweatshop, which, as we have seen, is to pay very low wages compared to U.S. standards, but much higher than those previously prevailing in the third world country, and to offer what we would consider appalling working conditions. To argue from analogy, sometimes, carpenters commit rapes. Are we to condemn this entire profession as intrinsically evil on that ground? No, of course not, since rape is not a necessary condition of the practice of carpentry. But neither is violence a necessary concomitant of the sweatshop. OUTSOURCING

Outsourcing is also widely condemned by all and sundry; well, at least by the politically correct. But, this is just a term that signifies trade. This is full disclosure time: I have a confession to make. I outsource my car repair to my mechanic. I outsource my teeth cleaning to my dentist. I do not self medicate, but, rather, go to a doctor when I am sick. I do not grow my own fruits and vegetables. Instead, I outsource these tasks to grocers and restaurants, and, indirectly, through them, to farmers. Yes, I could have kept more employment for myself had I not engaged in these rash and possibly harmful activities, but, economic pervert that I am, I persist in my folly. My fellow New Orleanians are all guilty of much the same thing. We outsource our need for steel to Pittsburgh, our desires for beef to Texas, we import potatoes from Idaho and we rely on Washington State to supply us with apples. We could have done these ourselves, of course, but, to do so would have deprived us of the benefits of specialization and the division of labor. If we had attempted to be jacks of all trades and masters of none, by refraining from such outsourcing, we would have been cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Instead, we rely on our comparative advantages: mainly tourism, but with a bit of fishing, oil and chemicals thrown in for good measure. Nor is the U.S. in its entirety guiltless of this practice. Coffee comes in from South America, Mozart from Austria and Honda, well, these cars used to be imported from Japan. Heck, even the production of American flags are outsourced abroad. 138

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

We do this to such a great extent that almost a double digit share of our GDP is produced elsewhere, in exchange, of course, for our exports, broadly speaking (I abstract from the gullibility of others in accepting our fiat currency for their goods and services). We outsource banana growing to Costa Rica, and they outsources maple syrup production to us. Some people believe that these practices cause unemployment. That is just plain silly. If it were true, then small countries, which outsource 90% and more of their purchases, ought to be bastions of joblessness. Yet, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Hong Kong and Singapore have not been plagued by a lack of jobs. “Progressives” are forever whining about other countries not adhering to U.S. labor and environmental standards. We have covered the latter charge in the previous chapter, and deal with the former in this one. CEO AND JANITORIAL SALARIES

Productivity (strictly speaking, discounted marginal revenue productivity, Block, 1990B) determines wages in all reaches of the economy: for plumbers, carpenters, prostitutes, movie stars, ballet dancers, athletes, and, yes, this certainly includes both CEOs and janitors. With no government interference (no bailouts, no corporate welfare, no “too big to fail” chicanery, no public sector contracts laden with fat, no restrictions on entry for newcomers to the industry, whether domestic or foreign, etc.), then, yes, “the income difference between CEOs and janitors is a natural outcome of free markets.” This not only pertains to CEOs and janitors, but to all other occupations as well. For example, the janitor earns $10 per hour because, in equilibrium, that is exactly how much he adds to the total product. He cannot be paid more than that without a loss of profits for his employer, and risk of eventual bankruptcy. He must be remunerated at least to that extent, lest he seek employment elsewhere, or other firms bid him away from his present job. (I am here assuming that the productivity levels of all workers is the same at any firm, a situation that is only roughly correct in reality.) Why do CEOs earn far more than janitors? (By the way, in addressing this issue, we are now stepping out of the realm of libertarianism, which is a theory of right and wrong, and into that of economics, which attempts to explain and understand economic reality. Thus, there is no libertarian theory of why there is a gigantic wage differential between the two; rather, there is only an economic one. Where libertarianism steps in is to claim that these arrangements are in accord with justice.) The reason is rather straightforward: CEOs add more to the bottom line than do janitors. Suppose that the net added production of a given CEO is $5 million per year. It is easy to see why he would leave his present firm, and/or be quickly scooped up by another, if he were paid only, say, $1 million, annually. But, suppose that, due to the “corporate cronyism” mentioned by Woolard, or for some other such reason, the compensation package of our CEO is $20 million. Then, the company is retaining $15 million less than would otherwise be the case. It will have just that much less money with which to make new investments, maintain and upgrade its capital 139

CHAPTER 4

equipment, etc. If this business firm is giving the store away to its president, it will be to precisely that extent less able to compete with other companies. Its fate is clear: eventual bankruptcy. Posit now that all firms engage in this sort of artificial nest feathering. The ones that do this to the greatest extent will go to the wall soonest, thus discouraging this practice. What if all firms engage in this padding to the same exact degree? Then, they will all be sitting ducks for new entrants into the industry. Woolard’s “analysis” simply cannot be correct. Were it so, there would be no upper limit to executive salaries. But, surely, any corporation paying its president, say, $10 trillion per year would very quickly be forced into bankruptcy. There is yet another implication of paying our man $20 million when he is worth only $5 million: there will be less wherewithal to distribute to stockholders in the form of dividends. What will this do to stock prices? Why, it will reduce them to levels below what they would have otherwise attained. In other words, the company does not even have to go bankrupt to put a spoke in the wheel of this practice. These lower stock values will render it more of a target than it would otherwise have been, to takeover artists such as Michael Milken. This junk bond dealer, in other words, serves as a sort of economic watchdog, preventing CEO salaries from rising into the stratosphere; heck, from being higher than productivity levels. Well, where is Milken now? Why isn’t he doing his job of reining in executive compensation? Is it “market failure” that he and others like him are not functioning in this manner? Not a bit of it. Milken has been asleep at the switch so to speak for lo these many years because the government saw fit to incarcerate him on trumped up charges. He accepted a plea bargain from the corporativist state apparatus because its minions threatened to also indict his ailing brother who he wanted to protect. So, there we have it. First, the government eliminates one of the market’s powerful antidotes to out of control corporate wages (Anderson, 2002; Anderson and Jackson, 2005; Barry, 1998, 141–145, 2000A, 2000B; Fischel, 1995; Jensen, 1988; Lemieux, 2005; Manne, 1965; Ricketts, 1994; Rockwell, 1989, 1990; Rothbard, 1995a, 1995b; Scott, 1999). Then, it and its defenders complain that executive salaries are out of control. Heads they win, tails the market loses. Four Arrows, you express yourself as willing to accept a six to one ratio of highest to lowest salaries. But why this particular figure? Why not five to one or seven to one? How was the figure of six generated? Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Lebron James, Harrison Ford, Jay Leno and Michael Milken all earned far more than six times the amount paid to unskilled workers and none of them are (primarily) corporate executives. Does this also bother you, or are only CEOs your target? Does it not at all distress you that remuneration can only be limited in this manner through the employment of violence, something incompatible with the SEEJ that you supposedly support? That is, the only way you can prevent the Cleveland Cavaliers from paying Lebron James his sky high salary (to say nothing of putting a stoppage on the vast additional amounts of money he earns through endorsements) is to threaten fines or jail sentences for those who pay him more than you think he should receive. Here you have two parties, a basketball player and a team, both freely entering into a capitalist act between consenting adults. The latter pays the 140

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

former more money than you approve. By what right can anyone force these two parties to cease and desist? Maybe the following consideration will give you pause for thought in your quest to mandate maximum compensation for highly skilled and productive people. With a maximum wage law of the sort you are supporting, demand is greater than supply. If not allowed to manifest itself through higher, now illegal payments, this pressure registers in other ways. For example, during World War II, when employers were not allowed to pay market wages, in an effort to evade the spirit of the law they added on a fringe benefit that would not otherwise have been forthcoming: medical coverage. This led to our present medial malaise, in which business firms got involved where there was no reason for this. It is like pressing down on the water in a bathtub: it does not succeed. It cannot work. The water gets out onto the floor, no matter what attempts are made to prevent it. What might be the result of a law mandating that no salary can be more than six times any other? Well, movie stars, professional athletes, public figures, will have less of an incentive to pursue their callings, to the great detriment of the rest of us. These are the people who contribute the most to society, and this law will stifle them. Perhaps they will move abroad, to freer countries. Brain and talent drain anyone? Black markets might emerge, where CEOs are paid under the table. Or, perhaps, they are allowed to work fewer hours, take longer vacations, etc., all of which will exacerbate poverty. Remember, these people are the cream of the cream. They contribute the most to society. We mess with them at our own peril (Rand, 1957). But this is only the tip of the iceberg, for we have not yet considered what such pernicious legislation would do to profits. A great disparity in salaries is not the only source of unequal wealth. There are also profits. What good will it do from the “progressive” point of view to corral executive pay, if these men can then go out and earn vast profits as single proprietors, as they indeed would tend to do, if they are balked as far as salaries are concerned. No, a “six to one” salary rule will inevitably be followed up by profit controls. But this will do, if possible, even more harm to the quest to eradicate poverty (Gilder, 1981; Hazlitt, 1973; Lee, 1985; Nash, 1986; Schall, 1990; Williams, 2010.). For profits are the veritable life-blood of the economy. The lure of such gains are what leads to coordination. Without them, or, if they are greatly attenuated, central planning is the only way to coordinate human activity, and we have all seen the mass murder and starvation such a policy has caused. And, some of us have even learned from this painful experience (Block, 2006B; Conquest, 1986, 1990; Courtois, et al. 1999; DiLorenzo, 2006A; Rummel, 1992, 1994, 1997). In the view of Murray Rothbard (tba), honestly earned profits are an accurate indication of a man’s contribution to society, and no truer words were ever uttered. How is it that “Paris gets fed,” in the words of Bastiat (1964A, 1964B)? This economist looked down at that city from the Eifel Tower, and marveled at all the people, big as ants, scurrying around without any central direction at all, acting so as to feed the populace, even though as Smith (1776), this was not part of their intention. Instead, they were aiming at earning profits. In my opening statement of this chapter, I mentioned dieting and switching from chocolate to carrots. It is only 141

CHAPTER 4

the profit and loss system (Block, 2008; Carden, 2009; Freidman, 1970; Hazlitt, 2008; Kirzner, 1979) that can accommodate everyday changes of this sort Four Arrows, your advocacy of egalitarianism also runs dab smack into Nozick’s (1974) Wilt Chamberlain example, and I am curious as to how you would respond to that. This philosopher contemplates absolute wealth and income equality. But then, people want to watch Wilt perform his magic with a basketball. They are each willing to pay $20 to witness him doing his thing, thousands upon thousands of them. They all value this experience more than that amount of money, otherwise they would be scarcely willing to fork it over to him. Mr. Chamberlain, too, gains from this transaction, both in psychic income, (he enjoys his work), plus the vast profits that accrue to him. But, he will not do this for free. Nor will he dunk the ball if he has to give everyone their money back right afterward, so as to preserve equal money endowments. So, we have a conundrum: consumer satisfaction and economic freedom, on the one hand, versus equal wealth on the other. Where do you stand on this, Four Arrows? NEW ORLEANS

Four Arrows, you claim I am “living in an ivory tower” because I deny there is actual starvation in New Orleans. In your rejoinder to me on this, do you offer evidence of actual starvation in the Big Easy? You do not. Instead, you point to a whole host of other difficulties “Broken down or still abandoned hospitals, many homeless … people, frightened of police, housing costs beyond the reach of people struggling to return home after four years of displacement, renters receiving no federal money as promised.” Well, yes, none of this can be denied. But, where is the “starvation?” Your litany of difficulties in no way refutes my claim, as you seem to think it does. In any case, all of these problems were caused by your favourite institution – government – and not by mine – the free market system. Specifically, the Army Corp. of Engineers killed some 1,500 people in the area, and FEMA prevented private help from reaching the Crescent City, and slowed down its rate of recovery (Block and Rockwell, 2007; Rockwell and Block, 2010, forthcoming). What is infuriating about this is that these governmental organizations are still in operation; they have not been forced to shut down and skulk away in the night as they would have been, had they been part of the free enterprise system. Your quote from the very eloquent Miss Tracie Washington supports my point, not yours. No, wait. I spoke too quickly. You did claim that there were “many … hungry people” in New Orleans. I simply cannot tell you how erroneous this claim is. Do you have even a shred of evidence to support so remarkable a statement? I have lived in Nawlins for a decade now, and I can attest that the problem of poor people in my home town is not at all hunger. Rather, it is obesity. Believe me, were there any actual “starvation” in the Big Easy, there would have been banner headlines attesting to that fact. I challenge you to supply some evidence for your contention. In any case, if you were really worried about starvation, human starvation that is, you would not in our last chapter have cast your lot in with radical left wing 142

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

environmentalists, for many of whom our species is a “virus,” who view with equanimity the deaths of millions, no, billions of people. Also, you would have embraced institutions such as capitalism, profits, which you spurn. I doubt you support the British the industrial revolution, which has saved more people from starvation than perhaps any other historical breakthrough. No, no, if you want examples of actual starvation, go to North Korea, to the Soviet Union, to African countries where they blame famines caused by socialism on drought. I know this sounds harsh. If I could, I would say this in a less provocative way, but such words fail me. The brute fact of the matter is that human starvation is entirely a monopoly of socialism. It is entirely unknown under capitalism (except, of course for people with eating diseases such as anorexics). You are too nice a person to embrace a system responsible for that sort of thing. I know that your concern for hunger, let alone starvation, is genuine. I beg you to reconsider your position on these matters. NEGATIVE CORRELATIONS AND “BIG GOVERNMENT”

I regard this section of your response as its strongest. You are quite right, Four Arrows, to highlight some of the controversy surrounding the findings of negative statistical correlations between the size of government and the well being of the people. Let me just make one point here. I do not at all regard Ronald Reagan as a libertarian. Yes, he employed this rhetoric masterfully, but, when he was governor of California, its budget increased, as did the spending of the U.S. when he was president. He talked like a libertarian, but he acted like a big government conservative. This is in sharp contrast to Ron Paul, who not only talks the talk, but also walks the libertarian walk. Actions speak louder than words. SLAVERY AND REPARATIONS

I spend a lot of time on this subject because it is truly a fascinating one. Unlike welfare, and forced transfers of money from rich to poor, reparations can actually be supported by libertarians, as I have attempted to show. It is the one and only wealth transfer program where the employment of violence is justified. Another strong motivation of mine in writing this section was to distinguish my position from that of David Horowitz, with whom I am sometimes conflated. You are quite correct in pointing out that slavery long predates the U.S. experience with it. It goes as far back as recorded history, certainly including biblical times. My focus, however, was on the redistribution of money in the America, and our sordid history of slavery is certainly relevant to that. Four Arrows, you severely upbraid me for my statement “blacks are significantly better off as a group than the children of those who remained in Africa,” saying this is not worthy of (my) great reasoning skills.” Thanks for the compliment. But is my claim true or not? A moment’s reflection will surely convince you that it is. If you were a black person, Four Arrows, would you rather now be living in the 143

CHAPTER 4

U.S. or in one of the African countries? I certainly would choose the former were I in that position. This is not even a horse race. In terms of wealth, health care, safety, a whole host of other indices of well-being and happiness, yes, television ownership too, American black people are certainly better off than their African cousins. Do you want proof ? Look at how people “vote with their feet.” The emigration of black people from the U.S. to Africa has always been at near zero levels (I regard Marcus Garvey’s “back to Africa efforts as an aberration). The reverse is far from true. If there were completely open borders in the U.S. and also to Africa, it is my prediction that the immigration and emigration patterns would incline even more strongly in the western direction, precisely as occurred in Germany a few decades ago, and for much the same reasons. Yes, my position may well be “absurd,” at least from the perspective of the politically correct, but, for all that, it is absolutely true. Does truth no longer count? Yes, certainly, if libertarian style justice was to prevail, and subject to the burden of proof considerations I discussed, significant chunks of land in the U.S. would be turned over to the Indigenous Peoples of North America. How significant? That would be based on homesteading patterns. We have far better records of plantation ownership in the century 1765–1865 than we do of Indian land use patterns before the white man came, so the burden of proof will be even harder to meet. Also, the best estimate of total Indigenous population at the time of Columbus is 2–18 millions. This is far too few people to own entire continent. Right now, the total population of the U.S. is a tad over 300 million, and there are still vast empty spaces, particularly west of the Mississippi. With only 2–18 million, a most, Indian Peoples could legitimately claim only a small portion of American land mass. Another difficulty regarding the analogy between black and red people is that the former more clearly “mixed their labor with the land” than did the latter, who focused more on hunting. On the other hand, the argument in support of reparations to red people is superior to that for their black counterparts in that there were specific contracts signed by the U.S. government in the former but not the latter case. However, in the strict libertarian philosophy, there is no such thing as the government of the U.S. Rather, there are only individual guilty people who signed these contracts and then reneged on them, whose (children’s) property can legitimately be taken from them. A further consideration is that many of the lands under question now constitute national parks, an illicit situation if ever there was one. Four Arrows, you have thought longer and harder about the issue of land reparations for Native Americans than I, so I speak under correction by you on all of this. I intend to learn much from you on this topic in our collaboration. I would be delighted if you were to adopt the libertarian perspective on homesteading, private property rights, reparations as the return of stolen property, even if only arguendo. Then, with your far greater knowledge of the specifics of the case, perhaps we could work up an analysis that would incorporate our very different intellectual strengths. We might be able to at least make a start in this direction in your next response in this chapter. If not, maybe we could co author a separate scholarly article, or even a different book, on this topic. I am delighted with this prospect. I see 144

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

it as of far more import than merely “giv(ing) our university students an interesting opportunity for debate.” No, my thought is that if we can work together on, or even co author something coherent on this subject, it could serve as the basis of a series of lawsuits, perhaps supported by the libertarian Institute for Justice in the U.S., and the Canadian Constitution Foundation in the country to the north of us, where these considerations are equally relevant, I think. Right now, in my estimation, the movement for reparations to black people based on slavery isn’t going anywhere, but is at least on the public radar screen; in contrast, payments to red people based on land theft is not. At the very least I would hope through our mutual efforts to right this unjust imbalance. The U.S. government has maltreated the Indians in numerous ways. Making contracts with them for land settlement, and then abrogating them, when it seemed advantageous to them to do so; mismanaging trust accounts held for Native Peoples; promulgating the horrendous socialistic reservation system upon them. All this cries out to the heavens for redress. This case should not be dismissed as it would be by Horowitz. Nor should too much be made of it, as would Robinson. I can see him claiming that all white, black and yellow people now living in the U.S. should pay off all red people. Certainly recent immigrants to the U.S. from, say, Africa, or Korea, had nothing whatever to do with the brutalization of Indians, and they should not be held responsible for their plight. MINIMUM WAGE

Four Arrows, in your Initial Position you maintain that “falling real minimum wages,” are a problem that ought to be opposed. I intuit that we have the same goals here: to see to it that the wages of poor unskilled people are as high as possible (without any rights violations being committed), and that the current horrendous unemployment rates from which they suffer are not only not exacerbated, but are actually radically reduced, heck, down to zero if at all possible. However, we disagree, entirely, as to the best means toward these very worthy goals. You see the minimum wage law, I think, as a sort of floor under wages; the higher is this undergirding raised, the greater the compensation for people at the bottom of the economic pyramid. I see things very differently. In my view, the proper physical analogy for the minimum wage is not a floor, but a high jump bar; and, the higher it is raised, the more difficult it is for anyone to obtain any job at all. Indeed, it is my position that those responsible for this reprehensible legislation ought to be jailed, for the criminal way they have treated the unskilled (disproportionately, young black males). Why do I take this position which is so much out of step with the commonly accepted wisdom on this issue, but garners, perhaps, the most consensus of all controversial issues within the field economics? There are to be sure a few outliers (Card and Krueger, 1994), but the strong consensus of the economics profession (Block and Walker, 1988; Frey, 1984) is that this law is a disaster for the weakest members of our society. I do so because the view of the “man in the street” on this is just plain wrong. Consider the following. 145

CHAPTER 4

A skilled mechanic has a productivity of $40 per hour. This means, that for every hour he is in the garage, his employer is richer by this amount of money, compared to the situation where this employee is not there. How much will the repair shop owner like to pay our man? Why, zero, so that he could pocket the entire benefit; he is nothing if not a fat capitalist pig. But, at no wage at all, the mechanic will not agree to work there. Suppose, then that the firm offers him the princely sum of $1 per hour, this profiting to the extent of $39 per hour from this man’s efforts. This is an unstable situation, because some other garage would be delighted to scoop up this worker and pay him $2 hourly, earning $38 in profit. Where will this upward bidding process end? Why, at $40 per hour, assuming there are no costs of employers and employees finding each other; given the reality of actual expenses for this process, at something less, at least in the short run. The bid cannot exceed $40; certainly it cannot long endure at that level, for then the repair company loses money and cannot stay in business if it hemorrhages money. Now, suppose that the ever loving government comes along and passes a minimum wage law compelling that a salary of $100 per hour, or more, be paid. They do so we may suppose at the outset in an effort to boost compensation of garage mechanics. Will this work? Not at all. Instead, these people will become priced out of the market. For, if they are hired at $100 per hour, and can only produce $40 worth of car repair during that time, the employer will suffer a loss of $60 per hour. The same exact analysis applies to the more realistic case of the black male teenager with family problems who is a school drop out. His productivity is, say, $5 per hour. With a minimum wage set at $7 per hour, any employer fool enough to hire him would lose two smackers per 60 minutes. He might do so, anyway, out of charitable motives, but that is no way to run a railroad. Benevolence only goes so far. No, if this kid is to get any job at all, the minimum wage must fall, not be raised. Rather, it must be decreased to zero. Better yet, eliminated entirely. It is no accident that with an overall unemployment rate of some 10%, that for adults is far lower, and for teens it is significantly higher. For black youngsters, the unemployment rate is even more elevated (this last divergence concerns racism, a subject I hope to discuss in a future chapter). All of these figures are biased in a downward direction by our masters in Washington D.C., but at least their relative unemployment rates are believable. It is imperative that these young people jobs. If they have them, they can learn from on the job training, and in this way obtain the skills necessary to catapult them into employment status even in the face of stultifying wage minima. But when forced into joblessness (through violence: the state will imprison anyone who pays these young people less than the amount mandated by law), they become bored, and turn to a life of crime, something that no man of good will could welcome. What is holding them back from finding a job? It is not greed, or capitalism, or profit seeking. Instead, government interference with free enterprise is the culprit. Surely it is better to be employed at $5, than to be unemployed at $7, and earn no money at all? Yes, yes, the government will stuff money down the throats of the unemployed; perhaps, who knows, they will even be better off financially, when these payments are factored in to the equation. But, that will not in the least overturn 146

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

my contention that, other things equal, the minimum wage is a disaster for those at the bottom of the income distribution, the very people you are trying to raise up, Four Arrows. If the state would make these payments invariant to employment status, that would clarify what is going on. Let me explain with the aid of this table: MW

~MW

UI

A

B

~UI

C

D

In category A, there is both a minimum wage and unemployment insurance. In B, there is no minimum wage, but unemployment insurance is in effect. In C, the minimum wage exists, but not unemployment insurance. In D, neither program is present. I assume for illustrative purposes a productivity level of $5 on the part of person whose financial well being we are examining, a minimum wage of $7 and an unemployment insurance payment of $10 per hour. How does our observed person fare in each of these four cases? He does as follows:

UI

MW

~MW

A

B

$ from work: 0 $ from UI: 10 Total: 10 ~UI

C $ from work: 0 $ from UI: 0 Total: 0

$ from work: 5 $ from UI: 10 Total: 15 D $ from work: 5 $ from UI: 0 Total: 5

Here, we do one thing, calculate how much our representative person will collect from two sources: work, and government payments, and then add them up. In A, because of minimum wage legislation, our teenager is of course unemployed, and earns nothing from work, because he has no job. His UI payment of $10 is thus also his total income. In B, with no wage minima precluding him from employment, he earns $5. When we add in his $10 UI payment (which we do for the purposes of logical coherence, not because the government would actually disburse these funds) his total is $15. So, score one point for the absence of the minimum wage law: $15 is more than $10. Now, let us compare C and D. Here, matters are simple. With no UI to complicate matters, the absence of this pernicious legislation is seen to be beneficial to our young man, for, with it he earns nothing, and without it, $5. Another point scored for repealing this law. 147

CHAPTER 4

The temptation which must at all costs be resisted it to compare A and D. This is the seeming “real world” comparison, and, from it, it would appear that our randomly selected poor person would do better with two government programs, the minimum wage law plus unemployment insurance, than without both of them together. In the former case, he obtains $10; in the latter, only $5. But this comparison is invalid, and for two reasons. First, minor point, it focuses only on finance, and completely ignores the development, or non development, of human capital garnered from gainful employment. But, second, major point, we are now attempting to wrestle with one question and one question only: does the minimum wage help or hurt the poor, in the purely financial sense. That is, what is the well being of this individual totally divorced from boredom, crime, arrested skill development, etc., with and without the minimum wage law. In order to discern this, we can only compare A and B, on the one hand, and C and D on the other. Why? Because if we want to understand the reality of minimum wages and their effects on flesh and blood creatures, we must adopt ceteris paribus conditions: everything else must be help constant, and only one thing allowed to vary: the minimum wage law itself. So, what is going on with regard to A and B? In both cases, UI of $10 is given whether or not there is a minimum wage law in effect. The fallacy of comparing A and D and attempting to draw any conclusion from it is that now not one but two things are varying, both minimum wage legislation and unemployment insurance. One further bit of evidence in support of my analysis. Governmental forces are not totally stupid (just evil). They know full well that the minimum wage has negatively impacted the employment prospects for young people. It is hard to avoid this conclusion, when their unemployment rates are double, triple and sometimes even quadruple those of highly skilled adults. So, they have initiated special lower minimum wage levels for teens. Thus, they have introduced the very “falling real minimum wages,” against which you inveigh, Four Arrows. This is, of course, a step in the right direction. As a result, the unemployment rates for this age cohort are lower than they otherwise would be (more teenagers are able to “jump over” the high jump bar of which the minimum wage law consists). But, it is too little by far. The only just policy, the only one compatible with SEEJ, would be to repeal this law in its entirety. However, this baby step toward economic rationality and justice does reveal one thing: it can no longer coherently be maintained that the minimum wage law raises compensation levels. If it did, then why oh why make exceptions for young and poor kids? If anything, they should be singled out for special treatment by “progressives”: the level should be increased for them alone. If the minimum wage law is so appallingly bad for low skilled workers, why do we have it on the books? Here is the answer: strong support from organized labor. Evil, vicious, nasty, pernicious, immoral, unjust and depraved unions are responsible for this outrage. And why, in turn, would these organizations do this? Why would they blight the lives of young people, by cutting off the lowest rungs of the employment ladder, where unskilled youngsters typically get their start? It is nothing personal, I am convinced. It is just “business.” 148

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

Here is the situation. When the union leader goes to management and demands a raise for his membership, say, from $40 to $50 per hour, what is the first thing that runs through the mind of the latter? The same thing that occurs to any business firm when one factor of production suddenly becomes more expensive: tilt the manufacturing process in favour of those inputs that still remain relatively cheap. For instance, if furniture can be made out of wood, plastic, metal and cloth, and, the metal price rises, well, then reduce the proportion of this factor that goes into the furniture, and substitute for it all the others. This can almost be done, as it is rare that fixed proportions are required in manufacturing. Well, skilled (unionized) labor is one of the many factors that can be used as an input. What are the others? Land, machinery, capital, and, pre-eminently other labor factors, such as unskilled and semi skilled workers. So, the first thought on the mind of the CEO faced with a union demand for higher wages (money wages or fringe benefits, it matters not), is to reduce his reliance on that factor of production, and substitute for it other inputs, particularly unskilled workers. (There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat: you can do this with lots of apprentices and a few masters of the craft who serve as foremen; or with only some journeymen, and more of the highly skilled.) So, in the face of this demand for a boost from $40 to $50, the corporation would dearly love to fire some union members, and hire more beginners. But that is the last thing the unionist wants. In the early days of organized labor, the way to do this was to call them “scabs” and beat them up. Then arrived a spate of labor legislation that helped these groups attain their ends. But later in 1938 during the Great Depression the first minimum wage law was passed, stipulating that $.25 be paid. What better way to preclude this ploy on the part of management to fire some of them and hire cheaper replacement workers than to make this economically impossible? Unions are thus picking on the least, the last and lost of us: those unable to help themselves. It is a kindness to them to describe this initiative of theirs as despicable. For more criticism of the minimum wage go here: Becker, 1995; Block, 2000, 2001, 2002; Block and Barnett, 2002; Burkhauser, Couch, Wittenburg, 1996; Deere, Murphy and Welch, 1995; Gallaway and Adie, 1995; Klein and Dompe, 2007; Landsburg, 2004; McCormick and Block, 2000; Neumark and Wascher, 1992; Rothbard, 1988; Sohr and Block, 1997; Sowell, 1995; Vuk, 2006A, 2006B; Williams, 1982. SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

Four Arrows, here is a series of questions I would like you to consider answering in your next contribution to this chapter: 1. What is your criterion of proper wealth distribution? Do you accept my CEO salary analogy to wealth distribution, which undermines your objection to Domhoff ’s statistics? If not, why not? 2. Has socialism ever worked out to your satisfaction? Please give me some examples. 3. Suppose you became convinced of my arguments that a minimum wage law does not increase the salaries of the unskilled, and instead causes them to 149

CHAPTER 4

become unemployed. Would you then renounce your support for this pernicious legislation? Or, is this something you support on intrinsic not instrumental grounds. 4. Does your passion for egalitarianism extend to seizing eyeballs, or IQ points, from those who you think have more than their fair share of these things, and giving them to those who are deprived of them? 5. Do you think the Marxian labor theory of value is correct, according to which capitalists always and necessarily exploit workers? If so, I’ll be glad to hack away at this fallacy in my next contribution to this chapter. Four Arrows: Walter, your rebuttals challenge my sense of reality and I believe that all the books and facts in the world will not move you from your libertarianism. I also feel our students have enough of our perspectives and rationales for them to research and dialogue in ways that will allow them to conclude which is most sensible. So I do not want to continue down our rabbit hole. However, out of respect for you efforts, I will very briefly comment on those I found most disturbing. Then, to further honor your ideas about a collaborative relationship (finding the similar ground at least) between Indigenous rights and libertarian freedom concepts, I will briefly describe Indigenous economic systems so that you might better understand that there are options to libertarianism, more grounded in reality, that might also, and even better, serve your idealistic goals for freedom. Because I will be brief, I will also be blunt but I mean no disrespect. UTOPIAN PROBLEM

You say, “Yes, you are quite correct in pointing out that “the kind of laissez faire capitalism (I am) advocating has never existed.” I mentioned in my last piece that critics of libertarianism, like myself, believe the reason for the many contradictions and absurd claims relates to “having it both ways” and therefore I think this is the underlying problem with most of your arguments. You attempt to use real world history as it relates to capitalism to support libertarian ideals. However, whenever a proven fault of free market economics is demonstrated, you say this is not the responsibility of that system but a problem with a lack of a pure implementation of libertarian requirements. Your continued response to this concern is to merely say that it is worthwhile to discuss perfect solutions in an imperfect world, yet you do not really do this. Instead you attack those efforts to counter corporate fascism or aggressive cronyism, like those employed by the few remaining unions, instead of attacking the aspects of free market capitalism (the imperfect ones) that are problematic. Here are some examples, briefly: Income Disparity Your arithmetic games and twisting of Domhoff ’s statistics serve no useful purpose. It does not convince me that the current imperfect free market approach to income disparity represents a fair sharing of the productive values of the highest and lowest 150

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

paid workers. Nor does your argument about an entrepreneur’s risks work in this regard. Many CEOs are hired hands just like the janitor and many do worse for the company. For our students, I will offer another example of the disparities and leave it to them to conclude whether or not this state of affairs is just. In 2005, an average Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was paid 821 times as much as a minimum wage earner, who earns just $5.15 per hour. An average CEO earns more before lunchtime on the very first day of work in the year than a minimum wage worker earns all year. In 2005, the average CEO in the United States earned 262 times the pay of the average worker, the secondhighest level of this ratio in the 40 years for which there are data. In 2005, a CEO earned more in one workday (there are 260 in a year) than an average worker earned in 52 weeks. (10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861) (Michell, 2006). Violence You believe that my arguments about income distribution have nothing to do with doing violence to those on the lower end, that my statements are “remarkable” and you do not understand them. You see no violence in sweat shop conditions for workers either. If you believe that an economic system that essentially forces people to choose between no employment and a job one that pays barely sustainable low wages and, owing to the same greedy mentality, reduces job safety at the same time, is not a form of violence against the victims of this system, then we will have to agree only that our various statements on this matter are both remarkable. If you do not see the injury and harm to people working under sweat shop conditions, then our entire premise for this book that social injustice is defined by acts of violence is null and void and we apparently agree on little that relates to the subject except that, perhaps, wars are bad. I say perhaps because I will not know about your position until the next chapter. As for your statement, “Four Arrows, you are quite right to mention the fact that violence sometimes breaks out in sweat shops. In most cases, of course, it is caused by unions trying to make trouble,” I am going to leave this stand for scrutiny by our readers. The Only Way You say: “Remember, under capitalism, the only way you can become wealthy is by enriching those with whom you deal. Not so under the only alternatives to this system: socialism and fascism.” This is a classic example, Walter, of libertarianism’s tunnel vision and the pick and choose nature it shares with Christian Bible interpretations. Should the reader assume that you are talking about your version of capitalism which has never existed? If so, then you have no basis for such a strong claim. If you are talking about the current and historical models that exist, your argument is ludicrous and easily disproven simply by looking at the “socialistic” policies that have been implemented to counteract the injustices perpetrated under our imperfect capitalistic forms. (And if I again point them out to you, your argument 151

CHAPTER 4

will be, well, of course, this is because they involve aggression or cronyism or government coercion, etc.) Furthermore, your either-or language is not accurate. In fact, if you are truly trying to understand alternatives to libertarianism with an open-mind, then you will be excited to learn of an economic system that has been in use successfully for thousands of years. I will end my section with it but call it “Giving Economics” or “Reciprocity Economics.” It does not meet the general definitions for either capitalism, or socialism nor fascism. Civilization You state, “We are civilized, so we do not threaten or steal from each other.” Walter, are you referring here to your perfect never realized libertarian fantasy or to on the ground, historical models of civilization? If the latter, it is a remarkable statement for which I need not offer a rebuttal. THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

I’m happy you brought up this story as it was one of my favorite ones when I was a child. Interestingly, as it relates to the description of a gift economy, neither of your versions tells one of the most important parts of the original. The grasshopper, after idly (and wrongly we agree) did no more than play his fiddle while the ants worked, knocks on the door of the ants when he is cold and starving and they are inside feasting. The ants invite him in. He plays his fiddle all night and earns their hospitality and food. I’m sorry you missed this part of the story Walter and that the only moral of the story for you is “Be responsible for yourself!” SCABS

Your assertions that unions are responsible for the violence surrounding the actions of strike breakers often referred to as “scabs,” is more than remarkable. It is once again out of touch with historical reality. Your claim that organizations like the Pinkertons were “always defensive, in response to union intimidation and violence is so utterly inaccurate I hardly know where to start and could list pages of citations of evidence to show how lopsided is your argument. I suggest that you might start with Professor Steven Norwood’s 2002 text, Strikebreaking and Intimidation: Mercenaries and Masculinity in Twentieth-Century America. I read it a while back. One online review accurately states, “It provides vivid, if not unbiased accounts of the ruthless tactics pursued by American employers in their efforts to break strikes and weaken unions, with a special emphasis on entrepreneurial thuggery and espionage (Sundstom, 2003). Walter, I’ve spoken of cultural and educational hegemony previously and how it prevents most Americans from knowing truths about such things as union history. I suggest you are a victim of such hegemony. OIL SPILLS

Walter, you say, “I don’t say that under private ownership there would be no oil spills at all; accidents do occur. But, there would be many fewer, given profit and 152

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

loss considerations.” How do you know? What part of your fantasy projections should we use for evidence in behalf of your claim? And let’s say that the oceans are owned privately. How would this change anything? I’m sure BP was highly motivated to not have this happen. The law suits that are likely to soon begin are every bit as significant as would have occurred if the oceans as well as the affected neighborhoods were privately owned. There is no substance to your position that somehow free market versions of capitalism or government regulation or any of your straw man arguments have any bearing on my claim that the greed and tunnel vision that stems from unregulated, nonunionized, free enterprise is causing vast violence on the world. TOO MUCH REGULATION

Your argument that the bail out of Wall Street economic crises that occurred at the end of the Bush administration was more about too much regulation than too little would indeed be too complicated for us to debate here. However, most economists would disagree with you and I leave it to my students to verify this or not. As for your reference to the book, Meltdown: A Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, we can agree that the Federal Reserve was indeed a large reason for the problems that led to the crash. However, the Federal Reserve is not the government. It is also a private enterprise. It takes orders from the private sector, not the government (visa versa, in fact.) So this fact tends to challenge much of your and the author’s assertions. And as for your claim that the market has automatically punished those corporations that were guilty of unethical dealings, wrong again. I implore our students to look at the many Wall Street companies and banks that were “bailed out” (socialism?) by government (citizen tax money?) and which, in spite of alleged wrong-doing, are still making record profits and paying their bosses hefty bonuses. The few examples of those actually being punished is strikingly low in contrast with those that not only got away with illicit and unethical dealings but continue to prosper. YOUR QUESTIONS

You ask me, “Does it not at all distress you that remuneration can only be limited in this manner through the employment of violence, something incompatible with the SEEJ that you supposedly support?” Recall Walter that I wrote a book that deconstructed the rhetoric and fallacies of Rush Limbaugh (1994). This question of yours is so typical of his misleading language that I prefer to ignore it rather than answer it. However, that would violate my intentions for this book. So here is my answer. First, I reject the premise of your question. I believe you are utterly incorrect when you state that remuneration can only be limited through the employment of violence. I gave you a number of examples in my last segment, like those of the cooperatives or of companies like Costco that choose a more fair distribution of wealth. Thus your question is bogus and my argument suffers no distress because I do not accept your logic. 153

CHAPTER 4

In attempting to challenge my rebuttal to you about your claim there are no serious problems in New Orleans, etc., you ask me, “But, where is the “starvation?” First, I never used the word in any of my sentences and my general point stands in contrast to yours. Your wordsmithing is a smoke screen. If you want to know about the problems in New Orleans that refute your original sentences, I already quoted some references. If you want to split hairs between children being “hungry” and “starving,” that is your choice. The readers can research to come to the facts on this subject as relates to New Orleans and other cities. See for example, reference to the study that shows that a large number of children come to school hungry because they are not getting enough food at home in “New Orleans Educators Fighting Hunger in School (Carr, 2009).” And, by the way, obesity can be a sign of a diet that stems from poverty almost as much as being underweight. LIVING IN AFRICA

Your claim that even though you disapprove of slavery one has to admit that African Americans in the U.S. who came here because of slavery are better off than those who remained in Africa is preposterous and arrogant Walter. If there is some implication that this is evidence that free market factors involved in slavery did what libertarians promise, giving ultimate benefit to all, then it is another example of your faulty knowledge of real life. I think you might as a libertarian even be envious yourself of some of the African lifestyles. For example, the Nuer enjoy life with no legal institutions and no organized political life. They are a proud and egalitarian people who have amazing conflict resolution skills. Their main problems relate to the encroachment of their centralized state government. The Luo, Obama’s relatives, certainly have living conditions that involve sanitation problems, AIDs and hunger, but they are nonetheless full of cultural enjoyments and autonomies that might be the envy of many blacks. They are not suffering from discrimination in the southern states or who are crowding American prisons. Then there are the millions of Wodaabe, of West Africa. They are proud nomads who see personal relationships as the essence of being human and have elevated the concept of love and respect to a degree that many of us in the west would envy. Now, before I end by mentioning Nigeria, I want to remind the readers of what you said on this issue: But is my claim true or not? A moment’s reflection will surely convince you that it is. If you were a black person, Four Arrows, would you rather now be living in the U.S. or in one of the African countries? I certainly would choose the former were I in that position. This is not even a horse race. In terms of wealth, health care, safety, a whole host of other indices of well-being and happiness, yes, television ownership too, American black people are certainly better off than their African cousins. Nigeria is home to about twenty percent of all the Blacks in the world according to the Wiki site. In 2003, a study of sixty-five countries, including the U.S., published in the U.K.’s New Scientist Magazine, suggests that the people who live in this country are the “happiest people in the world (BBC, n.d.)”. 154

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

INDIGENOUS ECONOMICS

As for the rest of your questions, both the legitimate ones and the others, I hope you will find answers to them in my concluding comments about an alternative economic system most scholars like yourself have never considered. In much the same way Huston Smith spent a career studying the world’s great religions and never even once mentioned Indigenous spiritual traditions until his retirement years, and then apologized profusely for his omission. It is also about a system that may reveal some real solidarity between us and possibly, just possibly, give you an alternative economic model that embraces some of your goals, but unlike libertarianism, has actually been proven to work over thousands of years. Allow me to quote here someone whose humor is similar to yours Walter and who can speak more eloquently than I as well. She is a Seneca woman and an eminent professor of history, a friend and another co-author of mine: One of the most successful cons in modern history has people – intelligent people, educated people – believing that capitalism is the only “realistic” economic system that can support complex, sophisticated cultures. There are intrepid iconoclasts out there, refusing to reify capitalism, but they are typically waved off as fantasy-prone, Marxist, or unemployed. Most westerners sadly accept that the only alternative to capitalism ever attempted was the “failed” Soviet experiment. Thus has future economic discussion been ceded to the realm of western imagination, where one idiosyncratic dys/u/topia after another is proposed only to be dashed. Before we all jump off the utopian pier into rippling delusion, however, let us try quizzing the original premise (Mann, n.d.). After referring to the “cult of capitalism” as a “faith system” seeking converts (which fits my profile of it), Mann continues with examples from around the world of past and current “gift economies,” concluding, “These name just some of the gift economies extant in the world, and the list does not even scratch the surface of the theoretical work that has been done on the economics of the gift.” Walter, I was happy to learn that you believe that the U.S. owes something to its native inhabitants for its illegal breaking of treaties, although, once again, I found a contradiction in your thought, because you also say that libertarianism does not recognize the government, if I understood correctly. Who then do we sue? In any case, it is good to know that you at least realize that our people were robbed of life, liberty and happiness under a rule that claimed to promote precisely these things. Although you seem to oppose some of the important beliefs of what might be called the Indigenous worldview, such as realizing the inherent value in other than human entities, there is likely some important common ground here. At least, it is my current goal to find out if this is true or not. A gift economy in terms of Indigenous examples from around the world realizes a dance between collectivism and individualism. It is not based on capital nor is it socialism, communism or fascism. It is based on the concept I’ve mentioned before, represented famously by the Lakota prayer, “Mitakuye Oyasin” or “We are all related.” It is about the significance of others, of relationships, and an expansive 155

CHAPTER 4

community. It values people and other participants in nature for much more than any utilitarian purpose, as you seem to articulate (but may not really believe?). What I think you will like is that it is about freedom from any centralized, authoritarian system or rules beyond well tested cultural traditions designed to maintain an intricate system of reciprocity. This economy is not about exchanges between two people but a large scale interconnectedness wherein the reciprocal gift giving can come from anywhere in the network. Since we cannot pass on gifts and accumulate (hoard) at the same time, the distribution of wealth is relatively equitable. There is simply no need for regulations or unions to counter an otherwise greedy, hoarding mentality that is encouraged in most capitalistic societies. Instead of moving individuals to essentially disassociate with others (of a lower status) in order to get and maintain wealth, generosity is so respected that there is more wealth in giving than in getting and the more remarkable the gift the better. In fact, the Lakota say that the highest expression of courage is an act of deep, sincere and significant generosity. In a chapter in his book; Millennium: Tribal Wisdom and the Modern World, David Maybury-Lewis describes the reciprocity of Indigenous ways of living as a “moral economy: “that is, an economy permeated by personal and moral considerations. They are productive communities, much concerned with social relations between their members, as opposed to marketplaces that are primarily concerned with the economic transactions between their members. It is a system in which economic rationality and profitability have replaced or at least superseded ideas of obligation and mutuality (1992, p. 73) In such a system the “marketplace” is not impersonal. The ideas like “buyer beware” or “there is a sucker born every minute” have no place in this world. People do not give gifts and then steal them back, like betting against the value of a commodity as was done recently on Wall Street. Instead of competition as a hallmark of exchange, traditional Indigenous economies emphasize complementarity and stability. It is not about “use value” but rather the emphasis is on significant and authentic relationships that ultimately are good for everyone. (Another similar goal of your imaginary libertarianism. Walter, perhaps this is where Adam Smith got it wrong. His belief that if individuals are free to pursue their own selfish interests this would lead to the welfare of all has never, by your own admission, worked, and why should it? Community interests in his model are separate from what is best for the individual most cases. His view of a social network is only a collection of selfish individuals. Economies are for the sake of the business, not the community. It is about money, climbing the ladder to the top, where sweatshops and pollution are permitted if they pay off. Much of this is great for some individuals, hence its appeal. But it is, harmful to others, to the environment, the community and to the seventh generation. Perhaps Adam Smith’s followers will some day realize that the world is a web of relationships, not business deals, within an inseparable whole. Indigenous reciprocity and gifting reinforces this interconnectedness and serves the pursuit of happiness for all. 156

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

Walter: Bluntness is good. I join you in this. If friends cannot be blunt with each other, and, although I have not yet met you in person I feel we now have that relationship with each other, then they are not truly friends. UTOPIAN PROBLEM

Four Arrows, we never promised anyone a rose garden; we are not committed to coming into agreement with each other, although I imagine we both feel that would be nice. But, we have agreed, have we not, to at least fully engage each other? In my view, you are not in this chapter always living up to this commitment. I think I am making telling points against your position. Your reaction, all too often, is to hide behind two smokescreens. First, you say, then reiterate, and finally repeat yet once again, that libertarianism has never been fully implemented, and that we never achieve full general equilibrium in economics (I think you are more aware of the former than the latter, a rather obscure element of the dismal science). Second, you take the stance that my points are so silly, weird, ridiculous, absurd, unrealistic (these are more my words than yours, but this is the spirit of what you are saying) that you will not condescend to respond to them, but instead will leave consideration of them to our readers. In contrast, I don’t continually make the point that your preferred system (the potlatch, as it turns out) is imperfect, as must all institutions be, since they are manned by mere human beings, and we are not in the Garden of Eden. Nor do I consign your points, with which I disagree just as much as you oppose mine, to our readers; no, I at least try to respond to them. I certainly do have an ideal world in mind; one of full freedom. However, I am also talking about the real one. You dismiss my comments about the real world on the ground that I have in mind an ideal one. But, we all operate in this way. (Well, apart from those who like things exactly the way they now are, and that certainly doesn’t include either of us, nor any other sensible, moral person.) So, I am not clear on why this phenomenon of imperfection should cut against libertarianism, only, and not all other philosophies, certainly including your own. Yes, I do indeed “attempt to use real world history as it relates to capitalism to support libertarian ideals.” I also agree with your assessment that “whenever a proven fault of free market economics is demonstrated, (I) say this is not the responsibility of that system but a problem with a lack of a pure implementation of libertarian requirements.” That is, all of the flaws that have ever been pointed out about the present system by anyone including you, and they are many and serious, are not due to laissez faire capitalism, but instead to deviations from it. Why is this necessarily wrong, as you imply? I defy you or anyone else to mention even one flaw in “free market capitalism,” in contrast to what we actually have at present. Now, to be sure, there is an entire “market failure” literature within the discipline of economics. Heading the indictment list are monopoly, public goods, externalities and asymmetric information. You have not raised any such objections (apart from the external diseconomies of smoke pollution we previously discussed) so I have not responded to any of them in this chapter. But, when and if you do 157

CHAPTER 4

raise it and for the edification of our readers, I would offer in rebuttal publications such as these (Barnett and Block, 2007, 2009; Block, 1983, 2000, 2003; Cowen, 1988; De Jasay, 1989; Holcombe, 1997; Hoppe, 1989; Hummel, 1990; Osterfeld, 1989; Pasour, 1981; Rothbard, 1985, 1997; Schmidtz, 1991; Sechrest, 2003, 2004A, 2004B, 2007.) INCOME DISPARITY

First, you cite statistics from Domhoff (1990) about wealth disparity (by the way, I greatly admire his analysis of U.S. foreign policy); I criticize this data. To wit, I point out a contradiction in your analysis: you decry present U.S. wealth distribution, but also support a six to one ratio of CEO to janitor salaries. However, this is roughly the same proportion of the richest to the poorest deciles in the Domhoff statistics. And what is your “response” to this? You entirely ignore my point, and instead give me more of the same type of data once again, this time from Michell (2006). How can this promote greater understanding between us? You say I “twist” Domhoff ’s statistics? How so? Please correct me by pointing out the specific mistakes I have made. I do you the honor of pointing out your errors. Please accord that same respect to me. Your accusation that I am “twisting” this data is simply not sufficient. A difficulty with both these sets of statistics is that they cover the U.S. alone. Why be so limited? Why not include the entire world? The disparity between countries is gigantic. One reason for not offering this kind of information is that it would imply – from your perspective — that the U.S. and other rich nations should transfer significant portions of their wealth to the poor of India, China, Africa, South America, etc. But, are not these people human beings? If wealth disparities are wrong within a nation, surely, this would apply to the entire world as well? FORCED WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION

Yes, I truly believe that your arguments about income distribution involve the initiation of violence against innocent people. That is because you maintain that any wealth differences greater than your subjective tastes allow (I think it is that no one can have more than six times more than anyone else, but I am not sure of this), constitutes unjustified violence no matter how these divergences came about. You are willing to use the coercive tax system to right this wrong, which is not at all a wrong in the first place. I offered you Nozick’s (1974) Wilt Chamberlain example in refutation; I make up an example about you and I on that island where one of us gets richer than the other based on working harder. You ignore both examples. You stick to your guns that wealth differences greater than you want are per se examples of “violence.” I do indeed regard that as “remarkable.” I cannot for the life of me understand why this is so. I call upon you to explain this to me. In sharp contrast, I do not at all reject the notion that the present income and wealth distribution is the result of violence, and awful lot but certainly not all of it. 158

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

The ruling class rides roughshod over the rights and wealth of the rest of us. One of your boys, Kolko (1963, 1970) has done his homework. In his excellent publications on this matter, he documents precisely how evil monopoly state corporate capitalists have pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes. My analysis of unions, too, demonstrates how powerful organized labor has used violence against the less fortunate (mainly black and Hispanic kids) by brutalizing them as “scabs” and making it all but impossible for them to offer competition in the labor market because of the minimum wage law. (By the way, as in the case of Domhoff, I am a great admirer of the Marxist Kolko’s work on U.S. imperialism. Sophisticated free enterprisers regard Kolko as a genuine hero. As it happens, he spoke at several of our libertarian conferences, and garnered great support, applause. But, then, when he recognized we did not agree with his Marxist notions, he refused to have anything further to do with us.) Four Arrows, you are operating with a bludgeon, when it would be better to employ a scalpel. Right now, the U.S. economy is characterized by three elements: socialism, where the government owns the means of production (e.g., Government Motors, previously known as General Motors), fascism, where the state regulates the economy to a great degree, and free enterprise, where public sector rule-making is limited to stopping criminals and enforcing contracts. (In my opinion, it would be even better yet were markets to take care of this function as well, and the evil hand of government not be involved at all). Of course, “under capitalism, the only way you can become wealthy is by enriching those with whom you deal. Not so under the only alternatives to this system: socialism and fascism.” When Bill Gates (Microsoft) or Ray Kroc (McDonalds) or Oprah Winfrey, or Michael Jordan get rich, they do so by satisfying customers, not by brutalizing them. Why is this “a classic example … of libertarianism’s tunnel vision?” What did Bill, Ray, Oprah or Michael actually do, such that you would accuse them of violence and injustice? Please be specific. No, you need a scalpel here. You have to learn to distinguish between good businessmen, such as these four, and the bad ones as discussed by Kolko, and other revisionist historians, and mentioned by me at the very beginning of our environmental chapter. The only reason I can think of that would make you reject this eminently sensible point is if you believe that great wealth, of the more than six times anyone else’s variety, is per se unjust and violent. I regard that view, I am sorry to say this, as irresponsible and silly. Please tell me which specific commercial acts these half dozen people did that you consider violent and or unjust. I really don’t see what any of this has to do with “Christian Bible interpretations.” In my version of the classical fairy tale, the ant represents the hard worker who functions within the market system, engaging in voluntary actions such as buying from willing sellers, and selling to willing buyers. In sharp contrast the grasshopper stands for the evils of corporate welfare, bailouts, etc. What conclusion do you draw from my version of this story? You never answer that question. Instead, as is your wont, you substitute your version for mine. Don’t you realize this is evasive? Let me respond to your version, since you mention it: “The (grasshopper) plays his fiddle all night and earns (the ant’s) hospitality and food.” The moral I deduce from your version is that voluntary capitalist trade (music for food, in this case) is a good thing. 159

CHAPTER 4

SCABS

Murder is worse than rape. In some cases, I have no doubt, the victim gives “better” than she was threatened with, and kills the rapist. Nevertheless, we do not consider her a criminal, even though in some sense what she did to the rapist was “worse” than what he would have done to her. Why? Because the rapist is the initiator. He started up. She only reacted. And, she did so in self defense. It is a similar situation with unions and management. Organized labor, like the rapist, is the initiator of the strife. The owners of the firm are the victims. Remember, except for a union which limits itself to a mass quit, and does no more, specifically does not attempt to set up a picket line around the factory and keep out customers, suppliers, replacement workers, this type of organization is the initiator of the violence. They are akin to the husband who divorces his wife, and then attempts to maim any other man who attempts to date her. Four Arrows, it simply will not do to avoid the points I make in this regard. Do you or do you not make the same distinction that I do regarding licit and illicit unions? If you do not, would you mind, please, in sharing with me your objections to my analysis? Is it that you think the unionists are the rightful owners of these jobs, and the scabs are unjustified in “stealing” them? But, that cannot be, as a job is the embodiment of an agreement between two people. No one person, therefore, can own it. Also, as an egalitarian, why are you taking the side of the relatively well off unionists, vis a vis the much poorer scabs? Please do me the honor of responding these points. I show respect for you by not ignoring your statements. OIL SPILLS

How do I know “that under private ownership there would be (fewer) oil spills? It is due to the fact that when private companies spill oil they lose money (Rockwell, 2000; Rothbard, 1989), and will therefore not do as well in the competitive struggle, as they otherwise would have done. In contrast, when government owns an oil company (Petro-Canada and Petróleos Mexicanos, in the countries directly north and south of the U.S.) they will not be allowed to go broke, as they rely on tax monies. There is thus no automatic feedback mechanism driving the system in the anti oil spill direction. I don’t see why you think this bit of economic wisdom is a “fantasy projection” of mine. Private ocean ownership would be of great help in this regard, as any entrepreneur worthy of his “excessive” CEO salary would insist, at the very least, that the company which spilled oil, such as BP in the Gulf of Mexico, paid its full cost. In contrast, the U.S. government, with its Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Solomon, 2010) “limits the liability of offshore oil firms to $75 million plus cleanup costs, and then even absolved the oil firms of responsibility if the accident occurs as a result of an act of God, an act of war or the negligence of a third party.” This is crony capitalism at its finest. You wouldn’t catch a private ocean owner giving away the store like that. And, if he did, his firm would be heading for bankruptcy. Will this risk bring about rationality on the part of the present “owner,” here, the U.S. government? To ask this question is to call forth gales of laughter. Do you now see the answer to your question “How would this change 160

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

anything?” You accuse me of trying to foist upon you in this context a “straw man argument.” But why? To argue in straw man fashion is to attribute to one’s opponent a very weak position, one that he does not hold. Well, I think your position here is very weak (government ownership and control is superior to private ownership), but, you do hold this viewpoint, do you not? Thus, I am not creating any straw men. TOO MUCH REGULATION

You are absolutely correct when you aver that “most economists would disagree with” with me in my support for Woods (2009) and his Austrian economic analysis of the current depression. That is because the overwhelming majority of them are Keynesians, in the pay of the Fed, to a great degree, directly or indirectly (Backhouse, 2002, p. 308; Grim, 2009; McCallum, 1999, p. 5; Philbrook, 1953; White, 2005). I am delighted that “we can agree that the Federal Reserve was indeed a large reason for the problems that led to the crash.” This shows a magnificent understanding of the workings of the modern economy on your part. What with its fractional reserve banking, fiat currency, legal tender laws, denigration of free market money (the gold standard), the Fed is indeed the bogey man of the piece. However, we must part company when you mention that “the Federal Reserve is not the government. It is also a private enterprise.” This bespeaks a great ignorance of the economics of governmental central banking (Paul, 2009). The president of the U.S. does not appoint the CEO of private companies; and, when he does, they turn into departments of the state, for example, Government Motors (previously known as General Motors). Who do you think appointed Bernanke, and before him Greenspan? The stockholders of that “private” corporation, the Fed? Moreover, the evidence you offer for the supposed private status of the Fed is problematic. You say: “It takes orders from the private sector, not the government (visa versa, in fact.)” This indicates that either you really don’t understand libertarian ruling class theory (Domhoff, 1971, 1998; Hoppe, 1990; Hughes, 1977; Kolko, 1963; Mises, 1978; Oppenheimer, 1975; Raico, 1977; Rockwell, 2001. Yes, this is the same Domhoff upon whom you rely for data on wealth disparities; you really ought to read him, and these others I mention, on this topic) or have rejected it without telling me why. A basic insight of libertarian ruling class theory, of course, is that our rulers appear both in the state apparatus and also in the private sector; well, in that part of it earmarked by crony capitalism. This was the point I was trying to make in our chapter on the environment, and am still trying to make: there is all the difference between the good free market companies and the crony capitalist (Armentano, 2010) ones. The former welcome orders only from consumers; the latter are in bed with the government, and both send orders to, and receive them from, their cronies in the public sector. I don’t fully understand how you can deny that “the market (emphasis added) has automatically punished those corporations that were guilty of unethical dealings.” You do so on the ground that there are “many Wall Street companies and banks that were ‘bailed out’ (socialism?) by government (citizen tax money?) and which, in spite of alleged wrong-doing, are still making record profits and paying their 161

CHAPTER 4

bosses hefty bonuses.” You almost seem to realize that you are in error here, but not quite. You appear to appreciate that the reason these firms are still in operation is not due to the market but rather to “socialist” bailouts, and, indeed, with “citizen tax money.” But why the interrogatories here? Of course, the reason for only a “strikingly low” number of these poorly functioning companies being pushed into bankruptcy is government support of them. The state has simply overridden the judgment of the market, in all too many cases. You “implore our students” to look at all this, but if they do so through your eye glasses, they will be mislead into thinking, as you do, that the free enterprise system is responsible for these economic outrages. Four Arrows, you persist in thinking that I am engaged in some sort of “heads I win, tails you lose” kind of argument. If something good happens on Wall Street, or Main Street, I give credit to capitalism; if the opposite occurs, I then blame socialism or fascism. Full disclosure: yes, I am indeed guilty of exactly that kind of analysis. But I don’t do this automatically. That is, I am not cheating. It really is true that none of these untoward practices, to which both you and I object, can possibly take place under laissez faire capitalism. If they do, this demonstrates the existence of a very different system: corporate state monopoly capitalism, or fascism. To wit, if the state bails out a firm, I do not at all castigate the free market. And when a business suborns or bribes government into granting it special privileges (Domhoff, Kolko) I stand just as ready as you to condemn it. On the other hand I do distinguish between initiatory and defensive bribes and suborning. The former is the act of wresting favors from the state, in order to dis-accommodate competitors, and is illicit. But the latter constitutes an attempt to ward off such attacks, and can be justified on self defense grounds. VIOLENCE

You advocate the transfer of wealth through the tax and subsidy system from legitimate owners of it such as Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods, Lebron James, Harrison Ford, Jay Leno and Michael Milken, to the poor, so as to promote egalitarianism. Given that, you must necessarily be supporting the initiation of violence against innocent people. (Note, I do not mention here the heads of private corporations that are hand in glove with the state. Taking money from them would also of course involve violence, but this would be justified violence.) And, the same goes for your plan to limit, by law, the salaries of CEOs to six times the amount earned by the lowest paid members of their firms. If Tiger Woods cannot earn more than six times what he pays his caddy, an injustice has been perpetrated upon him. You disagree. But why? First, you “reject the premise” of my claim. Which premise? That there can be such a thing as a rich man who came by his wealth honestly? Surely, some people can do this, no? If not, please mention the dishonest things that Winfrey, Woods, James, Ford, Leno and Milken did. You “believe (I am) utterly incorrect when I state that remuneration can only be limited through the employment of violence.” But I never said any such thing. Surely, pay can be limited voluntarily. For all I know your soul mate Michael Moore has voluntarily reduced his salary to no more than six times the amount he pays his chauffer or secretary. However, I am saying 162

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

something very different. My claim is that if the government compels the half dozen rich people I mention above to give their hard and honestly earned money to the poor, and/or to limit their salaries to six times what is earned by the unskilled, this will not only constitute violence, but initiatory or unjustified violence. Giving me “a number of examples … like those of the cooperatives or of companies like Costco that choose a more fair distribution of wealth,” is irrelevant to this point. I fail, utterly, to see why my question “is bogus” and why you “do not accept (my) logic.” On another matter, I mis-spoke when I equated your “hunger” with my “starvation.” This is my error, and I thank you for correcting me on this. I have no doubt “that a large number of children come to school hungry because they are not getting enough food at home.” But why? Is it because of free enterprise? Hardly. We must seek elsewhere for the cause. My bet is on the evil welfare system, which has leached away the initiative of the underclass, as it has broken up its family structure (Murray, 1984). These are instances of child abuse, not economic freedom. LIVING IN AFRICA

I maintain above that “In terms of wealth, health care, safety, a whole host of other indices of well-being and happiness, yes, television ownership too, American black people are certainly better off than their African cousins. Do you want proof? Look at how people ‘vote with their feet.’ The emigration of black people from the U.S. to Africa has always been at near zero levels… The reverse is far from true.” Four Arrows, you characterize this as “preposterous and arrogant.” In support of your critical assessment, you wax eloquent about the wonderful characteristics and the “cultural enjoyments” of the Nuer, the Luo and the Wodaabe. I find this answer interesting, but non responsive. Even conceding what you say about these groups, that does not deny my claim that life in the U.S. is better for blacks than in Africa. Further, if living conditions for black people are so great there, and so bad back here in the racist U.S., when then is the emigration pattern from them to us, and not the other way around? If Nigerians are the “happiest people in the world” why do they emigrate to the U.S.? Why don’t American blacks want to go there? Do you reject out of hand the evidence of voting with one’s feet? INDIGENOUS ECONOMICS

Four Arrows, I am delighted, just delighted, with this section of your paper. On behalf of libertarians everywhere, I hereby welcome you into our fold. Hail, fellow capitalist pig brother of mine! Gift economies, the potlatch, “Indigenous spiritual traditions,” whatever you want to call it, are all part and parcel of the free enterprise voluntary laissez faire capitalist system. I fear you have not read, at least not carefully enough, what I said above about gift giving; or, you just plain didn’t believe me. Allow me then to repeat myself: The very first sentence in this chapter of mine was: “What is a just wealth distribution? In my view, it is one that results from respect for proper initial homesteading, for resulting private property rights, and, finally, from any legitimate subsequent form of title transfer.” I followed that up with this elaboration: “Other legitimate title 163

CHAPTER 4

transfers include gifts, gambling, inheritances, private charity, etc. (emphasis now added.)” So, yes, if people want to give each other things, do favors for one another, help out the other guy, be generous to all and sundry, and that constitutes their entire economic system, why, then, they are libertarians, given that they do not initiate violence against other people to prevent them from engaging in yet other legitimate title transfers, such as buying, selling, renting, lending, borrowing, advertising, engaging in futures markets, etc. But, this means no calling upon the polezei to enforce egalitarianism at the point of a gun as is your wont. You cannot have it both ways, Four Arrows. If your preferred system consists solely of “gift economics” (for the view that the economic system employed by at least some Native Americans also included the libertarian notion of private property, see Woods, 2008, 2010), then you have no warrant to object to any wealth disparities, no matter how “excessive.” For, suppose that there are a bunch of us who embrace “gift economics.” Only, we all like Joe a lot, and endow him with far more gifts than he gives to the rest of us. At the end of the day, he has most of our wealth, and we have very little. (Some yogi Ashrams operate like this.) Joe now has way more than anyone else. Much more than six times the amount owned by the poorest of us (I have asked you before, but you have never responded, where does the sextuple come from? Why not quintuple or sextuple?). But, as this division emerges from a strict adherence to potlatch principles, on what ground do you object to this result? There is thus a logical contradiction between your two principles; you must necessarily give up at least one of them. I know, I know, if you had your ‘druthers, the gift giving would never in a million years end up in any such way. But it could. Ah, but, you are not without a reply to this sally. You say: “Since we cannot pass on gifts and accumulate (hoard) at the same time, the distribution of wealth is relatively equitable.” This will not suffice, however. To be sure, one cannot both pass on and hoard the same exact thing; for example, a cake. No one can give it away, and have it too. But this is a weak reed indeed upon which to hang your thesis. For, it is entirely possible under the gift economy philosophy that one person hoards an awful lot of stuff, and only give a little bit away, and, for everyone else to keep very little to themselves and transfer most of their wealth to this (relative) hoarder. If so, then, scrupulously following the potlatch principles, we will still end up with wealth disparities, and they might well not be what you would consider “relatively equitable.” In your view, a “greedy, hoarding mentality … is encouraged in most capitalistic societies.” You wouldn’t care to offer any evidence for that outrageous claim, would you? It is refuted by the magnificent generosity shown by Americans, in particular. Private charity in the U.S. puts into the shade the levels of giving in their more socialistic counterparts in Europe and Canada. The Lakota are far from the only group of people who highly regard “sincere and significant generosity.” It is an utter falsity for you to refer to gift giving as an “alternative economic system most scholars like yourself have never considered.” Never considered? There is a not insignificant libertarian literature on this very topic, to which I and other libertarians have contributed (Bennett and DiLorenzo, 1989; Block, 2006C, unpublished; Hughes, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1998, unpublished; LaBletta and Block, 1999; Olasky, 1992; Rothbard, 1973). 164

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

Why do you suppose that your system has not caught on with the general populace? Why is the potlatch confined to just a few people? One reason may well be because people only give to those they trust to reciprocate. If you and I started donating our wealth to absolute strangers in faraway lands in the hope that they would return the favour, I fear we would be sadly disappointed. So, while the gift economy is fully compatible with libertarianism, indeed, is just as legitimate a part of the free enterprise system as any other aspect, and, as you say, “has actually been proven to work over thousands of years” it is unlikely to spread; for it will not be used by people who do not know each other. You attribute two mottos to the “marketplace” and reject them both: “buyer beware” and “there is a sucker born every minute.” I accept the former, join you in rebuffing the latter, but think that this latter one applies more, far more, to non free enterprise economic systems. Let me explain. “Buyer beware,” is a modern translation of the hoary traditional “caveat emptor.” The opposite of this is caveat vendidor, or, seller beware. The doctrine of caveat emptor allows a sale to be made on an “as is” basis. The buyer cannot later come back to the seller for a remedy if the item sold is found to be defective. Absent fraud on the part of the seller, this enables a commercial transaction to be “for keeps.” Were the default position to be caveat vendidor, then all sales would be subject to later discoveries. If there were a flaw, the buyer would always have at least a potential lien on the seller. Nothing could ever be finalized. Also, this doctrine legalizes the sale of a blind item, as in a “grab bag.” A sells B a box containing who knows what. This can only be done under caveat emptor. With caveat vendidor, the purchaser can always come back to the vendor, and demand satisfaction. Here, there is an implied warrant of merchantability, or habitability in the case of real estate. But why should the law force all suppliers to bear this burden, particularly, when, presumably, a lower price will be charged, given that the buyer is willing to bear this risk? In contrast, “there is a sucker born every minute” is a very different kind of statement. It might as well be the motto of those who engage in fraud. And, which institution is guilty of a greater amount of fraud? Is it the private sector, which, to be sure does contain its share of thieves, or the government, which is essentially a fraudulent enterprise? It promises that everyone can live at the expense of everyone else. It is based on the premise that it is a voluntary institution, when the very opposite is of course true. (No one ever signed any document to be a part of it.) People who “give gifts and then steal them back” are out and out thieves. It is interesting that you equate this practice with “betting against the value of a commodity as was done recently on Wall Street.” I am not exactly sure of what you mean by this latter practice, but, it would appear you are referring to selling short in futures markets. If so you might consider the fact that short selling is an aspect of speculation (Block, 1976; Galles, 2007; Murphy, 2006, 2008), and this is the market’s way of regulating itself. You yourself, Four Arrows, have complained about the current economic crises. Our present depression is an instance of economic stability, a characteristic you greatly admire, and claim for your own philosophy: “Instead of competition as a hallmark of exchange, traditional Indigenous economies emphasize … stability.” But speculation on stock and other such markets is the 165

CHAPTER 4

way the capitalist system reduces oscillations in itself (when it is free to do so, in the absence of government interference.) So, if you want to remain true to your own goal of stability, you ought to welcome this institution, not castigate it. ADAM SMITH, ONCE AGAIN

Four Arrows, you reject “Adam Smith(‘s)… belief that if individuals are free to pursue their own selfish interests this would lead to the welfare of all.” You go on to quote me as follows: this “has never, by your own admission, worked…” There are more fallacies in these two short statements than you can shake a stick at. Of course the invisible hand hasn’t “worked.” But that is because you have misstated this Smithian notion. Neither he, or I, nor any other supporter of the invisible hand ever said that it would lead to the welfare of all. Yes, it promotes welfare, alright, but not for everyone. The invisible hand helps market participants, only. If you are not part of the market, do not expect any succor from this phenomenon. This lets out pirates, robbers, murderers, government bureaucrats, unionists, central planners, politicians and their ilk. But with regard to those who participate in markets, it works very, very well. Perfectly? No, of course not (apart from the ex ante sense of mutual gain). Nothing on this side of the Garden of Eden ever functions in any such manner. Four Arrows, I deny that I ever said that the invisible hand does not “work,” as opposed to not “work perfectly.” Please offer a cite to back up this claim of yours about me. If you do, I will immediately renounce it. Why is it that people who are imperfectly touched by laissez faire capitalism are so much more economically prosperous than those who are not? As I mentioned above, it is not due to resources, population density, intelligence, or any of these other things. It is due to economic freedom. I am appalled that you should say that “pollution (is) permitted if (it) pay(s) off ” in the free enterprise system. Did I not say, over and over, and then repeat myself several times again in the last chapter, that pollution is a trespass, and would be severely dealt with in the free society? Do you not remember my analysis of judicial decisions on such nuisances the 1830s and the 1890s? How then can you say it is “permitted?” If you think that Smith’s “view (that) a social network is only a collection of selfish individuals” then you obviously haven’t looked at his Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), nor, even, entirely read his Wealth of Nations (1776). States Herbener (1987, p. 286) in this regard: “The Wealth of Nations contains his political ethics and Moral Sentiments constructs his views on personal ethics; integrating the two books reveals a real world environment for achieving his ethical goals.” Here is a quote from Adam Smith who, I think, has been unfairly bashed by you, throughout our book. I am not a blind devotee of this economist. In my view, Smith makes far too many compromises with the philosophy of economic freedom (Rothbard, 1995C). But his words (1859, paragraph VI.II.42) on the central planning interventionist philosophy you sometimes embrace are worth repeating: The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of 166

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse (sic) to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. Four Arrows, you say that “Economies are for the sake of the business, not the community. It is about money, climbing the ladder to the top…” Not so, not so. Rather, economies, the concatenation of all commercial interactions, are for the sake of all those who engage in them: businessmen, yes, but, also, certainly, consumers. What about the “community?” This, I take it, is just short hand for all the people who live in a town or city. But, not all of them engage in economic behavior. Only those members of the community who do so gain from free enterprise. Superficially, yes, economics “is about money.” On a deeper level, however, the dismal science studies human cooperation. Money is merely a facilitator of exchange. And, what is wrong with “getting to the top?” Forgive me for personalizing here, but you, Four Arrows, are a world class horseman. In order to achieve that status, you had to claw your way to the top, did you not? That is, you have to beat out scads of other such athletes in competitions that demonstrated your relative merit in this sport. What, pray tell, is so wrong with this? I assume you achieved your exalted status without cheating or initiating violence. You did not poison your competitors, nor their horses; you did not pull any Tonya Harding knee capping of either man or beast. Yet, you hurt a lot of other riders who would have liked to, but were unable to, beat you in these competitions. It is the same in some sense in the commercial world; competition abounds in all human endeavors, including your beloved potlatch. That, too, is part of economics, whether you appreciate it or not. REPARATIONS

Four Arrows, yes, we can make common cause around the issue of reparations to native peoples for the many and massive violations of their private property rights. Of course, agreement with me on this means that you buy into the notion of private property rights? If so, how do you then reconcile this with your willingness to seize the private property of rich people who are rightful owners (Winfrey, Woods, James, Ford, Leno and Milken) in order to give it to the poor, in order to promote egalitarianism? Assuming we can obviate that problem, you pose another: I supposedly contradict myself (no, not again; I really have to stop doing that, it is so uncool) “because (I) 167

CHAPTER 4

also say that libertarianism does not recognize the government. Who then do we sue?” you ask. Four Arrows, you have to read, yet again, my analysis of reparations for slavery. If you do, you will see that I as a libertarian target individuals, not governments. The state has no money of its own. Its entire treasury has been stolen from its serfs. If you read this material again you will see that I did not call for the U.S. government to make any payments to the grandchildren of black slaves. Rather, I stated that the plantations now owned by the grandchildren of the (mainly) white slave owners should be transferred to them. In other words, the reparations would consist of payments from one set of individuals to another. It would the same in the case of the maltreated Indians. There were individual members of the government who stole native people’s lands. Were the forces of justice able to swoop down upon them at that time, they would have seized the private property of those thieves. Instead, this wealth went to their children when they passed away, and are now in the hands of their grandchildren. It is these funds that would be the subject of reparations. In addition, always respecting the burden of proof, there are lands robbed from Indigenous peoples now populated by others. Those residents should be kicked off these territories, and the land given to those who can prove they are the grandchildren of the Indians from whom the land was stolen. Further, some of these lands are now used for national parks. All such land, of course, should be privatized; but, goodly bits of it should be given over to the Indian grandchildren, since it was stolen from their grandparents, and, in the natural order of things, they would have inherited it. Sorry, no contradiction here. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

I still do not know whether or not you accept my analysis of labor unions. Do you agree with me, now, that only those that limit themselves to mass quits are legitimate, and those which, in addition, use (legal or illegal) violence against “scabs,” are illicit? What is your opinion of my analysis of working conditions: that the employer has every incentive to satisfy his employees in this regard. Do you renounce your claim that in my view, workers produce nothing? What about sweat shops? Joke: one economist asks another, “How’s your wife?” Comes the answer: “Compared to what?” In much the same way, I claim that compared to the situation where Kathy Lee Gifford does not show up in the third world country with her sweat shop, the workers are worse off. Why oh why won’t you tell me, and the readership of this book, why you disagree with my analysis of this issue? You say to me: “If you do not see the injury and harm to people working under sweat shop conditions…,” from which I infer you do not agree. But, I still don’t know why. All I know is that you regret the poor working conditions afforded by such enterprises; and, I of course join you in this. But, I contend, when a new sweatshop opens, and the proprietor competes for a given labor pool, wages will be higher than otherwise, and working conditions better. Why do you disagree with this very basic element of supply and demand analysis? And what is your reaction to my treatment of outsourcing? Are you a protectionist? Do you think that free international trade will help everyone (except perhaps for banana producers in Canada, and the owners of maple syrup trees in Costa Rica)? 168

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

I have asked if you are a Marxist, and accept the labor theory of value. I have had no answer to that question. Do you realize that there is a significant overlap between your public policy prescriptions (wealth transfers, unions, central bank, private property rights, education) and that of the “Ten planks of communism in America” (n.d.). Does this give you pause for thought? Then, there are CEO salaries. Do you accept my account of Michael Milken’s role in this? What about my “twisting” of your data on this with my claim that Domhoff ’s statistics roughly fit the six to one ratio you embrace? Query: just how much reduction in the size of the economic pie are you willing to tolerate in order to achieve by force your redistributionist goals? Do you have any metric to decide just how far you will go toward egalitarianism, at the cost of overall prosperity? Last but far from least, I am dying to know if you have changed your position on the minimum wage. And if not, why not? I regard this issue as a litmus text for economic rationality. There are several Nobel Prize winners in economics who have failed it. Stiglitz, for example (Vuk, 2006). I hope and trust your response to this query of mine will indicate you do better than that Columbia University economics professor. Four Arrows: Dearest Walter, my new unmet friend, I wish we could get together today and play a few games of handball, then head off to collaborate on an anti-war project where it might do some good. Maybe we could stop off afterwards and argue with a beer in hand about some of this chapter’s topics in person with body language, clarifications, and time to truly try to understand one another. Alas, this is not to be and we have only this form of communication with all its shortcomings. One of them relates to your thinking I have ignored some of your statements and have disparaged others with less respect than you should rightly expect. Well, I have never meant any disrespect and I have done my best within the reasonable confines of writing space and literary effectiveness to carefully respond to what seemed to me to be your most important arguments. You also feel I have been overly dismissive of your positions or not responsive to them. Although I grant you your feelings, I think I have gone overboard to reply specifically and rigorously to your ideas and statements. To answer the many questions in your last exchange, however, seems fruitless as well as being unfair to our readers. We are already going in circles. So since I have the last word in this chapter, I’ll only be addressing a few of your many questions, the ones that appear to be most urgent according to how you phrase them. Allow me to start with your saying my response to your slavery argument, that it has ultimately proven beneficial for subsequent generations of African Americans, is “interesting but unresponsive.” Frankly, I find this reply, as others you have offered to be both uninteresting and unresponsive. You did not reply to my concern that this argument constitutes a gross “ends justifies the means” fallacy. Instead, you focus only on the part of your argument that relates to your idea that the future generations of slaves are happier in the U.S. than those of people who remained in Africa. Even here you dismiss the international study I used to rebuke this line 169

CHAPTER 4

of reasoning. You also all but ignore the reasons I shared the values and joys of a number of Indigenous Peoples of Africa. Instead, you merely ask, “Why don’t American blacks want to go there? Do you reject out of hand the evidence of voting with one’s feet?” I’m not interested in going back down this particular rabbit hole, but if I were I would point out one simple reason that there are more blacks immigrating to the U.S. from Africa is that there are more than three times as many people in Africa than in the U.S. I would also talk about the appeal of financial opportunities for Africans whose education has prepared them for international labor markets. I would ask you to see the documentary film, “Blacks Without Borders” showing how much happier a number of African Americans are after having moved to Africa. Maybe I would even discuss why three million Americans a year are becoming ex patriots like me. All of these arguments, however, would continue to lead us away from the real issue- your belief that blacks have it better in the U.S. than in Africa somehow rationalizes free enterprise and its role in slavery. More important to our effort to understand one another’s different worldview is my continuing concern about the fantasy aspect of libertarianism that you, with equal consistency, think is unfair. You believe it is quite alright to argue in behalf of some idealized system of economics that has never existed by attacking efforts of people who are doing their best to protect themselves from the consequences of what you say is partially responsible for it never existing! So you attack ideas and people who only want to protect themselves or the environment from the kind of quasi-free market capitalism that exists for real and includes the corporatism and cronyism that you also oppose. I might better empathize with your arguments against minimum wages and unions if the proven history of corporate greed, cronyism, etc., did not exist. However, to blame environmentalists or unions for confronting real problems because they theoretically do not support a utopian vision makes no sense to me. You say in your most recent remarks in this chapter that you “defy (me) or anyone else to mention even one flaw in “free market capitalism.” Surely you cannot be referring to that version now existing because you yourself have pointed to its many flaws. So you must be pointing to the fantasy version, and if so why would anyone talk about problems in it when they are so busy addressing the those that the onthe-ground version presents? Sure, philosophers might find some use in that conversation and I applaud the search for solutions to our world’s problems, but so far the efforts supported by the idealized version of your economics have led to widespread problems, not solutions. I know you do not appreciate my analogies to religion, but I cannot help it here: I find the same problem exists when folks argue the virtues of religion in the “ideal” sense, when for thousands of years the “real” version has been responsible for untold misery and violence. Walter, I do not avoid your points. You simply seem unwilling or unable to truly understand my counterpoints. For example, I certainly understood the morale of your version of the ant and the grasshopper story. I showed this by challenging it with an obviously different moral, which, by the way was not “my version,” but as I stated, the actual version in the original children’s book. So it is not my wont to substitute your version for mine; but as usual my efforts to seek an actual version is what must bother you. 170

WEALTH DISTRIBUTION

Similarly, you keep claiming I am avoiding your points about unions. I don’t know how to be more clear about my disagreement with your positions than I have been. I believe if a group of workers think they are entitled to a larger share of what they help produce, or want to work with a degree of safety they feel their participation in the creation of a product warrants, then they have a right to strike. Employers have a right to ignore the strike and hire other people. No one has the right to perpetrate physical violence. (I’m sorry you did not acknowledge that more violence in history came from the employer during strike situations, contrary to your assertion.) You pit “relatively well off unionists” against non-unionists, but you should be comparing both against the greedy owners of companies who are responsible for the unequal distribution of earned wealth among workers in the first place. I am sorry that you feel that my responses ignore your statements or dishonor you, but I don’t know what more to say on this without offering volumes of evidence about trade unions. As I said, I will not attempt to address all of your similar concerns and questions, but I truly do not want you to die, so I will address briefly your comment, “Last but far from least, I am dying to know if you have changed your position on the minimum wage.” I thought I was sufficiently thorough on this, but I’ll try again. The empirical research on the economic benefits overall to a society relating to increases in the minimum wage are mixed. Therefore, this is a controversial issue. Great Britain, however, has come to a consensus about the issue and there are no longer political debates about it, so at least one society has clearly seen its benefits. For my view, any full-time job is worth a living wage and if an additional dollar buys groceries for someone’s child who would otherwise go to school hungry, I’m all for it. I disagree with your assessment that government welfare is more responsible for hunger, by the way, than a minimum wage. I see the minimum wage in a historical context and it does not take too much study of history to see why it came about. I don’t think what I’m saying represents a change from what I’ve previously said in this chapter, but please know I fully understand your and the classical economic arguments against the minimum wage. However, as you full well know, I could cite numerous high-powered economists who disagree with it. Just as you seem to crave more in-depth dialogue about your arguments versus mine, I would love to spend days lounging on my beach here in Mexico with both of us drinking coconut water and trying to figure one another out. Maybe I could better understand how you can reason that the government ruling about limiting the liability of offshore oil firms to $75 million plus cleanup costs is evidence that private enterprise (the real kind) was not responsible for the oil spill. Yes, this is an example of crony capitalism, but not having this law in place did not stop oil spills before the law went into effect. Besides, I cannot imagine that British Petroleum would not have been sufficiently motivated to avoid such a problem if only because of lost profits. It might also be fun to talk about our agreement about the Federal Reserve Banks and our disagreement relating to whether they are private or a governmental enterprise. I think your argument and those of the authors you cite is overshadowed by the fact that courts have ruled that the Federal Reserve Banks are “independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations”, and there is not sufficient “federal government control over ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day 171

CHAPTER 4

operation’” of the Federal Reserve Bank for it to be considered a federal agency (Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239, 1982).” Ah, the joy of having the last word! Allow me to end this chapter, Walter, by referring to your saying my view of the Indigenous gift economy does not allow me to object to excessive wealth disparities. You are completely incorrect on this, which is less important than your not having understood my effort to use this as a way to find common ground between us. The idea I attempted to convey is that the main reason for the Indigenous system of gift giving was about balance and reciprocity. Although land, rivers and sea were not considered private property, shoes, baskets, jewelry and arrows were, so it was a version of free trade for sure. However, it was based on a respect for others that did not make dishonesty, greed and distrust prevalent; indeed reduced these negative emotions. I had hoped we would find mutual appreciation for this economic system, which functioned well as I said for thousands of years, unlike your pie-inthe-sky libertarian theories. You confess that gift giving cannot work in the real world because people are not trustworthy enough to eventually reciprocate. If this is not enough to throw out all of your visions of free market capitalism, not just the gifting part, I don’t know what is. It is the greed and distrust that has emerged historically from capitalistic societies that is ultimately the cause of our problems, not the feeble efforts of unions, regulations or appeals to reason. Such greed was not common in pre-Columbian times nor is it among many contemporary Indigenous societies. Now, I grant you that we both live in la la land with our ideals to some degree. You with your fantasies about libertarianism and me with my equally imaginary possibilities for a return to an Indigenous value system. The big difference, however, besides the fact that one existed for a long time and the other never did, is that efforts and values associated with Indigenous gift giving never led to the imbalances our world is now facing. On the other hand, notions surrounding “imperfect” free market capitalism are what has led to the greed, distrust, inequities and destruction of our world today. Walter’s Final Position: I support egalitarianism on voluntary basis; gift giving, charity, etc, are part of the freedom philosophy. But, if egalitarianism is pursued at the point of gun, it amounts to theft, and creates poverty to boot. Unless egalitarians are willing to embrace the logic of their own evil position (compulsory transfer of IQ points from the smart to the stupid, of one eye from the sighted to the blind), I don’t think anyone else should take their position seriously. And not even then. Four Arrows’ Final Position: I do not believe in capitalism, communism, socialism, Marxism or libertarianism in relationship to justice in income and wealth sharing, but rather I believe in egalitarian principles and a value system that recognize the right of everyone to a fair share of wealth; I honor the natural law of reciprocity, and believe that “a poor man shames us all.

172

CHAPTER 5

A CASE STUDY Protesting Arizona’s Anti-hispanic Legislation

Four Arrow’s Initial Position: Since Fielding Graduate University (FGU) College of Educational Leadership and Change (ELC) decided not to cancel its national conference in Arizona despite the call for a national boycott, it is obligated amend its agenda by adding significant opportunities for students to learn about the new legislation in that tate, if it is to abide by its social justice mission. Walter’s Initial Position: I favor completely open borders for goods, investments, and people too. For me, there can be no such person as an “illegal immigrant.” They should all be legal, as far as I am concerned. I also support full privatization of all land, and oppose government welfare programs such as schools, hospitals, roads, unemployment insurance, etc., whether for newly arrived Americans, or those long established in this country. I regard ethnic, racial and feminist “studies” as roughly on a par with flat earthism, voodoo and Ouija boards. Should such courses be offered? Certainly, if anyone is willing to pay for them out of their own funds in private schools. Four Arrows: Walter, please allow me to offer a brief introduction to this chapter for our readers. Up until now, we have afforded our readers an opportunity to observe two professors with opposing ideologies and belief systems attempt to support their positions while sincerely trying to understand the other’s. With our three selected subjects-academic freedom, ecological sustainability, and wealth distribution- we have hopefully stimulated dialogue about important social, ecological and economic justice issues for a variety of courses in higher education. More important is our initial disagreement about the very role of higher education in dealing with such topics. In this chapter, we face this debate head-on by discussing an actual case study. My own university, after a rigorous discussion about whether or not to honor the Arizona boycott by cancelling a previously scheduled national session in Tucson, has decided to still have its workshops there but to significantly modify them so as to engage the controversial laws head on. Of course, the two laws to which I refer are House Bill 2281 and Senate Bill 1070. The former essentially bans classes in K-12 schools that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government (yes, this is in the language of the law!); promote resentment toward a race or class of people; are designed primarily for pupils of one ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity with a particular ethnic culture or identity. The latter is the one receiving all the international attention. It requires 173

CHAPTER 5

police officers to stop suspected illegals and demand proof of citizenship. I would like to start our dialogue with the ethnic studies legislation. I think our positions on this issue and how the role of an educational leadership training college should react to it will reveal more our fundamental worldviews in a way that will set the stage for the question about the immigration law and FGU’s on-the-scene response to it and to the national boycott. To repeat what this bill is about, HBl 2281 states that a district or charter school in Arizona shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following: 12 1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government. 13 2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people. 14 3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group 15 4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals Walter, this law will stop courses about Mexican, African American and Native American cultures if someone in authority feels they violate any of these four orders. Tom Horne, the state superintendent of public instruction and a Republican running for Attorney General, claims that such studies divide people and that a person’s character as an individual is what is important, not one’s culture. Except of course, this does not exclude the culture he imagines is “American.” He has claimed that ethnic studies, like the La Raza Program for Mexican-Americans that is popular in Arizona public schools, represents a “race-obsessed philosophy, and it’s a downer philosophy, teaches people that they’re oppressed, make them angry, make it so that they don’t have hope for their future (Democracynow, May 15, 2010).” I don’t know yet Walter what your feelings are about all of this, but to me it is an example of the typical right-wing nationalistic fear of pluralism and opposition to diversity. It comes from the same source that I see in many other prejudicial venues, including anti-Indian and anti-gay attitudes, rhetoric and policies. I just spent some intense days in Tucson and the school districts there are already looking to disallow a number of books they have used in the past. I see this effort as not all that different from the forced assimilation of American Indians that historically and even currently attacks our cultural values and identify. The way to achieve healthy, peaceful relationships is to embrace multi-cultural perspectives, not to homogenize and hegemonize them. (I think “hegemonize” is my own construct, but it should become a real word.) Now, let me briefly move on to the FGU situation. Our national session was scheduled to take place in Tucson long before the 2010 immigration law was proposed. Although many other organizations honoured the request for a boycott by cancelling their meetings, our university president thought it would be more in alignment with our social justice vision if we went into the fray and as a result had an even more significant impact as educational leaders. After reading his letter, however, a number of FGU students and faculty were not convinced that his plan to remain in Tucson was a legitimate part of a social justice action. Rather, these folks felt that simply having one or two speakers or workshops talk about the situation in Arizona would be insufficient grounds for sidestepping the boycott. I fully 174

A CASE STUDY

appreciated their position as a union man who would never cross a picket line. In the absence of a more specific agenda change in the national session planning, I took it upon myself to go to Arizona at my own expense to solicit speakers on all sides of the issue to come and present in my scheduled workshops and in workshop that some of the faculty offered as well. When I shared this with the university session organizing team, they stepped up to the plate. To make a long story short, we now have twenty-two additional speakers on the schedule, ranging from politicians and professors to activists and students. So Walter, my main question for you is, “Do you agree with our College of Educational Leadership and Change’s (ELC) change of venue whereby it has shifted the original focus for its national session to one that now largely engages the apparent social injustices surrounding the new laws? I am truly unable to guess. I was encouraged by the fact that we ended the last chapter agreeing, in essence, that a gift economy as practiced by our Indigenous ancestors is acceptable to libertarianism if it is voluntary, as was the Indigenous model. I realize from the article you sent me earlier that we agree on such things as legalization of drugs, the right to bear arms (although we might differ about restrictions on certain kinds of weapons), freedom of speech, the rights of consenting adults to freely express their sexuality (and I don’t know if this includes marriage), and the removal of corporate privilege. I might guess from this that you will also agree that pluralism and cultural identity are fine if not legislated. What I don’t know is if you feel ethnic studies are an example of such legislation, if universities with a social justice agenda have the right to organize protests, and if prejudice and laws that support it should be challenged outright. Walter: In psychology there is a concept called “free association.” The therapist gives offers a word, such as “mother,” or “house,” or some such, and the patient says whatever comes into his mind, as a result. Four Arrows, I am going to treat you as my psychologist in this chapter; I will free associate based on your opening statement in it. The four topics I ferret out of what you have said are immigration law; special new disciplines in academia such as ethnic studies, queer studies, black studies, etc.; racial and sexual discrimination and profiling, and last but not least, to boycott or not to boycott? I consider them in that order. IMMIGRATION LAW

Libertarians are divided on this issue. Among advocates of closed borders, e.g., greatly restricted entry, are prominent leaders of this philosophy such as Rothbard (1998), and Hoppe (1998, 2001, 2002). I, along with several others (Block, 1998; Block and Callahan, 2003; Gregory and Block, 2007) take the opposite stance and favour totally open borders (some among this latter group would make an exception for criminals and those with contagious diseases). The traditional libertarian position on international economic relations favoured the free movement of goods (free trade), of investment (no government barriers whatsoever to multinational enterprises opening up factories wherever they wanted) and the free movement of labor (people could locate where they wishes with not so much as a passport required of them). 175

CHAPTER 5

The libertarian opponents of open borders have four powerful arguments, all of which I reject. First, they say, there is a disanalogy between these first two traditional freedoms and the third. Free trade and investment both require two consenting parties: an exporter and an importer, a foreign investor, and a domestic partner. But the third, labor mobility, is in contrast unilateral: the emigrant just shows up on our shores without any by-your-leave from anyone in the recipient country. Thus, in their view, this amounts to trespass, a serious violation of the libertarian law code. My response to this, using the U.S. as an example, is that there is plenty of land not now privately owned, most of it illegitimately claimed by the government (national parks, other holdings of the Bureau of Land Management, etc.) If the immigrants went to these places, there could be no trespass, no violation of libertarian law. Second, they offer the cases of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The U.S.S.R. enticed through subsidies millions of ethnic Russians to emigrate to those small countries, completely overwhelming their culture, their language, their populations. The fear is that the Chinese, perhaps, or the Indians, could do this to the U.S. But this argument, too, fails. For one thing, in the free society there would be no Soviet subsidies for this (or any other) purpose. For another, if the people in these three small nations privately owned all the territory there, every square inch of it, as they would under full bore libertarianism, then the incursion from Russia would be a trespass or an invasion, and could be justifiably stopped cold on that ground alone. Third, critics such as Brimelow (1996) wax eloquent about the theft of which the immigrants are guilty: availing themselves of hospitals, schools, welfare payments, road services, having contributed nothing to their financing. But there is a simple response to this: instead of precluding immigrants who violate no libertarian law by entering our country, repeal and/or privatize all these programs/amenities, so that no one can in effect steal from anyone else any more. The fourth argument put forth by immigration opponents is that the low skilled individuals such as many who emigrate from Mexico, will reduce the lowest paid wages of those already in the U.S., thus exacerbating inequality. This might well be so, but it hardly constitutes an argument libertarians need take cognizance of, since we are not egalitarians. (But it might well give pause to leftist “progressive” open border advocates; at the very least, this demonstrates a logical contradiction in their position.) ETHNIC STUDIES, QUEER STUDIES, BLACK STUDIES, MULTICULTURAL STUDIES, FEMINIST STUDIES, ETC

These so-called “disciplines” are a joke. They constitute no more and no less than an academic welfare program for those “scholars” too inept to contribute to the more traditional and intellectually taxing ones. I also include sociology, literature, film, art, music and religion departments, and those, unbeknownst to me, where they “study” comic books and rap “music” in this academically feeble category. As far as I am concerned, it has been a long time, ever since the arrival of the 1960s student hippies into the professoriate, with but a few exceptions, any of these obscurantist studies 176

A CASE STUDY

have made any contribution whatsoever to advanced learning. I defy any one to point to any discovery made in any of these fields that is both true and new. Does this mean that courses in these “subjects” would not be offered by institutions of higher learning in the free society? No, certainly not. Private universities (there would be no public ones) would be free to offer any fields they desired, including courses in tiddely winks, pick-up sticks and Frisbee – which would have roughly the intellectual heft of these other aforementioned ones. My only claim is that if there were anything like fair competition in academia, these “disciplines” would all go the way of the dodo bird. To ask if queer, black and feminist studies, etc. should be taught is akin to questioning whether grade school children should be forced to wear school uniforms; if prayer should be ignored, prohibited or compelled in college; whether, and when, sex education ought to be taught. The only non arbitrary way to determine policies on such matters is through the process of open academic competition. It is the same thing with the issue of whether restaurants ought to use red, blue or no table cloths; if supermarkets would be better off with wider, narrower or the same size aisles as they now feature; how ought wood to be allocated between baseball bats and hockey sticks. Let the market decide! (How many free market economists does it take to change a light bulb? None! They leave it to market forces.) RACIAL AND SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION; PROFILING

What motivates the leftist opposition to the Arizona law calling for its police to query the bone fides of all inhabitants of that state? It is the fear that they will engage in racial or ethnic profiling: querying people who appear Hispanic to a disproportionate degree. Such profiling is anathema to people who occupy this section of the political spectrum because it is based on racial discrimination, which they supposedly abhor. And not only prejudice based on race or ethnicity: they are equally adamant that no such behavior afflict people on several other grounds as well: sexual preference, religion, disability status, etc. Suppose you were let loose on a university campus and offered $1000 if you could pick two students, based on the mere sight of them alone, one of whom could dunk a basketball, the other who could solve a quadratic equation (I owe this example to Walter Williams, 2003). Would you engage in racial profiling and choose a talk black student for the first task, and a short Oriental with glasses as thick as the bottoms of Coca Cola bottles for the other? If so you are a detestable racial profiler; if not, and you reverse these choices, or do not rely on such external hints, you are very unlikely to earn that $1000. Suppose you were a policeman charged with guarding the safety of an airplane against a suicide bomber. Who would you choose for special attention? A Muslim man, aged 30–35, or a black woman in her seventies? If you choose the former, you again qualify for the appellation of horrid, racist scum-of-the-earth racial profiler; if the latter you get points for political correctness but are clearly not doing your job. Yes, most Muslims are not suicide bombers, but most suicide bombers are Muslims; not a single elderly black woman has ever done any such thing. If you were a cop in Arizona, charged with ferreting out illegal aliens (remember, I oppose doing this), would you focus attention on a white, black 177

CHAPTER 5

or Hispanic appearing person? If the latter, you again win the profiling award; if not you will be far less likely to acquit your assigned task. The point I am making is that profiling is no more and no less than using experience, and induction. It is merely the functioning of the empirical method. In any other context, this practice would be seen for what it is: aid in making rational choices. But, political correctness is so much with us that profiling is widely seen as something untoward. The key element in the libertarian analysis of these issues is freedom of association. All interaction between people must be strictly voluntary. No one should ever be forced to associate with anyone else against his will, whether personally or professionally, and this certainly includes protected minorities presumably beloved of the “progressives.” The opposite of free association is slavery, where the victim is forced to associate with the master despite his own desires to be free. Another example is unionism, where the employer is compelled to associate with the employee, again on an involuntary basis. What are the practical implications of these insights? It means that any individual or group of people may discriminate against another other, for a reason that appears sufficient to the person engaged in this act or for no reason at all. Those paragraphs of the so called “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 that force businesses to accept all would-be customers should be repealed. It is actually a violation of true civil rights to preclude individuals from picking and choosing their own associates, whether personal or commercial, it matters not one whit. There is a great deal of hypocrisy that accompanies the anti discrimination philosophy (Williams, 2010; Elder, 2010). It indicates that even its “progressive” advocates do not take it seriously. And if they do not, why should the rest of us? For example, why should anti discrimination law apply only to business, not personal life? That is, why should not marriage licenses (they should not exist in the first place, government has no proper warrant to enter the bedrooms and personal relationships of the nation, but that is another story) be withheld when the rate of intermarriage is statistically too low, thus indicating discriminatory patterns. Black people comprise roughly 14% of the population; others, therefore, 86%. Absent discrimination, one out of seven others would marry a black person, and six out of seven blacks would enter the state of matrimony with one of these others. But the rate of intermarriage is far lower than that. Thus, this pattern cries out to the heavens for government redress, of course at the point of a gun, but, only if we take seriously non discrimination in personal relations. Similarly, dating, friendship and other forms of social interaction do not conform to the statistical prototype that would emerge if they came about as the result of a purely probabilistic basis, e.g., no discrimination. Consider another relationship: sex. If the leftists were logically consistent, they would condemn all heterosexuals, all of them, male and female alike. Both sets of such people are despicable: they each discriminate against half of the human race, in terms of bed partners, lovers, potential spouses. This is certainly prejudicial in the sense of pre judging people. Why, heterosexuals do not even give members of the same gender as they so much as a chance to see if they can work things out in this context. No, no, not for these evil people: they reject same sex partners right 178

A CASE STUDY

from the outset, sight unseen. Can anything be more discriminatory? I know it is not politically correct to criticize homosexuals, and I ordinarily adhere strictly to these considerations (they don’t call me Walter Politically Correct Block for nothing), but in this one case I am going to go out on a limb and call their practices into question. Gays are equally as shameful as heteros. They, too, reject half the human race as potential lovers, bed partners, etc. And, just as their heterosexual counterparts, they do so in a totally prejudicial manner: they don’t even give members of the opposite sex a chance to prove their worth in this regard. It is only bisexuals who are free of these contemptible practices. They will go to bed with anyone, certainly a practice that ought to be enforced by the police. If those who support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were serious in their opposition to discriminatory practices, they would call for compulsory bisexuality. Strange that they do not, is it not? Presumably, they do not have the courage of their so-called convictions. They must know that this is the logical implication of their presumed (very uneven) quest for fairness and opposition to prejudice. But wait! We speak too quickly. Members of the bisexual community, too, practice unspeakable discrimination. Not, to be sure, in terms of gender, but, they engage in “lookism”; that is, they prefer beauty to ugliness. And, to compound their guilt, they prefer people who have a sense of humour, who are ambitious, who are good lovers, who appreciate them. Perfidy, perfidy, thy name is bisexuality. But even within the commercial realm there are lacunae. An employer may not legally withhold a job from a potential employee on several proscribed grounds (race, sexual preference, gender, ethnicity, etc.) but an employee is free to refuse to work for an employer on any of these grounds. Why the bias in application? Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. It is a foul deed. It ought to be abolished wherever it raises its ugly head. A soul food restaurant may not refuse entry to an Oriental, but a black person may with impunity refuse to dine at a Chinese eating establishment because he hates the ethnicity of the proprietors (Selick, 1995). Again, why the difference? So, it would appear, the customer is king, while the supplier is a serf. But matters turn themselves inside out once again when we contemplate a large commercial buyer (Wal-Mart, Burger King, Toyota) discriminating against a supplier on any of these proscribed grounds. What is going on here? If this were a just law, it would be applied holus bolus, to every conceivable situation. This is hardly the case. Even its strongest advocates do not support these logical implications of their own viewpoint. And then there is the question of the National Basketball Association. When oh when are we going to get rid of all those superb black athletes? They comprise far more of the NBA representation than their 14% of the overall population entitles them to. Unless and until we do, there will be no room for short, fat semi-blind Jewish guys like me who can’t run or jump. This obviously constitutes racial (and heightism and athleticism) discrimination of the worst sort. I’m sure President Obama will soon set this rank injustice to rights. We want an NBA that looks like America, do we not? But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Here is yet more evidence of hypocrisy (Hornberger, 2010). When Rand Paul calls for end to both compulsory segregation 179

CHAPTER 5

and compulsory integration, the forces of political correctness rise up as one and castigate him as a racist. Yet, when the ACLU supports a Nazi march in Skokie, no one condemns this group as Hitler sympathisers. Why the disparate treatment? If a bigot publicly invited everyone in his neighbourhood to his home for a party, except for blacks and Jews, even pinko-liberals would support his right to do so. A man’s home is his castle, after all. But, if the same bigot announced anyone could come to his store except for members of these same two groups, progressives everywhere would be frothing at the mouth with righteous indignation, and calling for state intervention to prohibit this outrage. Why the 180 degree opposite reaction to these two very similar events? According to Hornberger, 2010: I suspect that the answer lies in the long-time, deep antipathy that liberals have to the free market — to free enterprise — to capitalism — to profit. This of course raises the ugly head of socialism, the economic philosophy that has long attracted the liberal community. In the ideal world of the liberal, there would be no private businesses, no more exploitation of the worker, no more consumer gouging, no more stolen profits. The government would own and operate all enterprises, and everyone would work for the government. The model, of course, for this socialist paradise is Cuba or North Korea. But liberals instinctively know that they could never get away with converting America to a complete socialist system. Most Americans simply wouldn’t go along with it. So, long ago liberals decided to compromise and settle for less. They began socializing America with socialist welfare-state redistributive schemes, programs that would use the state to equalize wealth by having the IRS take from the rich and middle class to give to the poor. That’s what Social Security, Medicare, welfare, education grants, SBA loans, and so forth are all about. But they went further than that. They also figured out if they couldn’t nationalize everyone’s business (except in certain instances, like Obama’s takeover of automobile companies and banks), they would use the state to control and direct private business operations. Here arises the ugly head of fascism, a way of life in which the state leaves businesses nominally in private hands but controls and directs them as if the state were the true owner (n.d.) If these so called civil rights laws were not on the books, and enforced, wouldn’t blacks (and gays, Hispanics, Native Peoples, Jews, etc.) get the short end of the stick? Would this be equivalent to bringing back Jim Crow legislation? Would this not give free rein to prejudice? No. First, consider the fact that blacks had to ride in the back of the bus in the South in the early part of the 20th century. My claim is that this would never have happened under the free enterprise system I advocate. The key issue here is why did not another bus company arise, which offered this downtrodden minority a choice of seat anywhere on their vehicles? This hypothetical competitor could have charged such customers a somewhat higher price, and thus garnered even greater 180

A CASE STUDY

profits, given that these riders regarded such rules as demeaning. Was this oversight yet another market failure? Not at all. Rather, the Jim Crow laws forbade such a practice (Roback, 1986), and the local governments would not grant a necessary bus franchise to any company that would treat blacks in a civilized manner. Next, consider the case of white employer prejudice against black workers. Suppose that there are two employees with equal productivity of $5 per hour, but, due to discrimination, the white one receives a wage of that same $5, while his black counterpart is paid only $3. We posit two businesses which are otherwise identical, apart from their taste for discrimination (Becker, 1957). One will hire the cheapest worker, assuming equal productivity; the other will not tolerate any blacks on its employment rolls for any reason. Employees Productivity -Wage =Profit

White $5 -$5 0

Black $5 -$3 $2

How much profit can the prejudiced firm earn by hiring the white worker? Zero, given our assumption of equal worker productivity. And how much can the other company exploit out of the blood, sweat and tears of the black employee? Why, $2 per hour. Under these conditions the white racist employer (who only hires whites under our assumptions) will tend to go out of business. He will be replaced by those with a lesser or no taste for discrimination. In other words, the free enterprise system tends to root out this type of behavior. But, suppose a minimum wage of $5 is enacted. Is the prejudiced employer now financially penalized for his irrational behavior? No, not any more. There is no longer any competitive advantage to be garnered by hiring the black worker, given our assumptions. The bigoted employer can now engage in this “taste” to his heart’s content with no negative financial repercussions whatsoever. Thus, only racists can support this law. The deer is an otherwise very weak animal; but, it has an important compensation, its speed. The same for the skunk; without its smell, it would be helpless. Ditto for the porcupine and its quills. The worker who is targeted by racial discrimination on the part of employers is rendered, thereby, a weak economic actor. But he, too, in a free market setting that is, in the absence of the minimum wage law, has an ace the hole: the ability to work for a low compensation package. If we were supporters of the deer, the skunk and the porcupine, we would not be too happy with a law that stripped from them their main chances to stay alive. Similarly, we who favour those at the bottom of the economic pyramid cannot look with equanimity upon a minimum wage law which takes away from young black usually male workers one of their last best chances to achieve employment, and with it the on the job training which confers on them the opportunity for a better life. Let us consider one last illustration, hotel accommodation. Assume that the costs of housing white and black guests (in terms of breakage, property destruction, theft, annoying other patrons) is equal. But, due to racist animosity on the part of owners, 181

CHAPTER 5

blacks are either charged twice as much as whites, or, are not admitted at all. Is this an equilibrium situation, likely to endure? Of course not. Indeed the market will not, cannot, allow this state of affairs to continue. Rather, there will be profit opportunities for those, white or black, who open their registers to all comers. If these new ventures charge blacks more than whites, they will rack up even larger profits. This will draw additional non-discriminatory hotels into the market, and, as this occurs, room rents will tend to come into conformity with one another. But, is it fair that during this process of adjustment black employees will be paid less than their white counterparts, blacks will have had to ride in the back of the bus until they can be rescued by new firms willing to allow them total access, and white hotel guests will pay less than their equally costly to house would-be fellow black renters? There are several ways to answer this question. One of them is, Yes, it is fair, given that these results emanate from the freely made decisions of the legitimate property owners in question. In the biblical parable of the talents, after all, the employees work for different numbers of hours (with presumably equal hourly productivity) and yet are paid different amounts of money. This is fair just and proper because this employer is the legitimate owner of his money, and, as such, is entitled to spend it in any way he wants, provided only for the libertarian that he not violate the non aggression principle (e.g., the three biblical workers agreed to work for him for at different levels of compensation.) Here is another way to answer this “fairness” objection. This process of adjustment is only a theoretical construct. It is an attempt to show that if the market for some reason is out of whack, and minorities are penalized by discriminators (the economy could deviate from equilibrium in either direction), there will be market forces directing matters back to the situation where they are not so harmed. If a 150 pound man jumps onto a scale, the pointer oscillates wildly from 50 to 250 pounds, eventually settling down to his correct weight right in the middle of these two numbers. This is the fail safe mechanism, ensuring measurement accuracy. But in ordinary circumstances, if he calmly stands on the scale, an accurate device will point to 150 right away. So is it with the market. In the free enterprise system, absent government interferences, blacks do not ride in the back of the bus if they do not want to, equally productive members of both races are paid the same, and there is hotel accommodation for all (at different establishments if there is a taste for discrimination on the part of many hotel guests.) TO BOYCOTT OR NOT TO BOYCOTT

I really have no dog in this fight. On the one hand, I sympathize with the some 70% of Arizonans who support this new policy. That state is being overrun by criminals (the solution to that problem is to legalize drugs, all of them) and faces the over crowding of schools, hospitals, welfare rolls (the libertarian solution to that one is to end the dole, privatize these institutions). On the other hand, most of the immigrants from Mexico violate no libertarian law. They should not be stopped at the border, nor sent back once they illegally cross it. And, also, yes, legal MexicanAmericans will undoubtedly be disproportionately hassled by the police as a result 182

A CASE STUDY

of this initiative. But were I to spend my scarce time on boycotting, it would not be against the Arizonans. Rather, I would focus on Obama (and Bush before him) because they are both mass murderers of innocent people in foreign lands who did not first attack us. As Ron Paul says, they are over here because we were first over there. If I were for some reason compelled to boycott Arizona, I would not do so because of immigration. Rather I would be motivated by their having cravenly given in to pressure to celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. This man was a socialist, a unionist, and a plagiarist. His Ph.D. degree should posthumously be stripped from him and he should not be honoured in any way. Instead, I would support a Malcolm X day. This man, in sharp contrast, was a true leader of his people. He was instrumental in the “black is beautiful, throw away your hair straighteners” movement. He clearly saw welfare for the trap that it is. He was an activist in the free enterprise effort, by initiating a series of Shabazz bakeries, laundromats and other businesses. Long live Malcolm X in our hearts and minds. Let me conclude this section by responding directly to you most pointed question, Four Arrows, “Did ELC make the right decision in turning its usual educational session into one that studies the social justice implications of the Arizona laws? My answer is that this effort is a waste of time. Instead, all members of the ELC community should become libertarians! And, then, if they want to protest, they should target Obama’s imperialist wars and his entire domestic policy of socialism and fascism. Four Arrows: Walter, I hope that when you read about my beliefs your gut does not twist as hard as mine does when I read about yours. If so, our world is not likely to move beyond the polarities it now faces. This is discouraging for me as I realize this is our last chapter. At the same time, however, I do feel a warm light occasionally drifting through our dialogue and this is encouraging even if it only relates to the strange friendship that has emerged between us in spite of our differences. Also, I must admit that in your comments above I have found two of your arguments actually to be logical, a rare happening thus far, and I found one of your analogies to be on point and not absurd. The absurd ones in this chapter so far include you stating that unionism forces a relationship between employers and employees as if one did not exist regardless; and your statement that the high NBA percentage of African Americans rises to a discrimination problem as if an Anglo does not have an equal chance if skills warrant; your claim that hetero or homo sexuality implies some kind of prejudice; your proposed solution about free enterprise and blacks starting their own bus companies; and your comparison of a law that ends compulsory integration in schools with the ACLU supporting free speech. These are not worth responding to in my estimation if only because you once again fail to deal with the issues on the ground in real history, but rather imagine that things like public bussing might have been replaced and then offering a solution as if this had actually happened. As for your attack on Martin Luther King, Jr., I am saddened that a friend could make the argument that a more important boycott effort would oppose Arizona being 183

CHAPTER 5

pressured to have a holiday in honor of him. Your treatment of the process involved in that decision and your diminishing the current boycott effort to that which is equal to your personal disdain for this is anything but humorous. Perhaps you yourself need an ethnic study course to remember the many blacks murdered in the south, etc. And, to dismiss all “socialists” and “unionists” as you have done (and don’t forget we now must add Helen Keller to your list) is the kind of broad brush stroke thinking I find so dangerous in our world and the very cause of the kind of thinking that MLK risked his life trying to peacefully end. I did appreciate your entertaining analogy relating to profiling. It has a logic the others are lacking. Moreover, I tend to agree that if one must find illegal aliens, one would want to look for the identifiers common to the target population. (In this case, I don’t know whether immigrants to Arizona from other countries besides Mexico are a problem, but if the law is to be applied across the board, then Hispanic people would not be the only folks profiled.) Before you get too excited about my agreement, however, know that my concern is not so much with how to implement the law but rather with the rationale for doing it in the first place. There are obvious personal freedoms that are being impacted with profiling. Many innocent people will be humiliated or worse. My main concern, however, is that this program misses the root causes of the problem. Also, its treatment of the businesses that hire illegals is far more lenient than how it treats the workers. By the way, the majority of illegal immigrants coming across the border are Indigenous agricultural workers, so the “who was here first?” argument might apply, not to mention that Arizona was previously seized from Mexico, etc. We also agree about the problem of U.S. intervention and if we know the history of the border and U.S. invasions responsible for it, we might agree also on other aspects of the Arizona situation. So perhaps this is, after all, progress. I am not going to get back into specific free market arguments as I want to stay more on task. Let me say that I think it is the “free market” philosophy that is logically most responsible for the horrors of such events as the present British Petroleum catastrophe. It does not matter that the current situation includes imperfect implementations of the never-on-earth ideals of libertarianism. What has been responsible for this calamity and many more like it is nonetheless largely the responsibility of free market advocacy and implementation. In the absence of your unknown possibilities if BP had operated in your fantasy world, a more liberal approach to regulations, unionism, and concern for the environment might well have prevented the problem. Similarly, your free market arguments about the university’s involvement with the ethnic studies ban and immigration profiling in Arizona are wrought with dangers to human freedom and dignity, again, in the real world of “free market” economics. Back to the subject at hand. I am happy that you disagree with other libertarians about the immigration problem. However, you could have offered more and better reasons for your disagreement with Brimelow’s claims relating to illegal immigrants taxing the hospitals, etc. For example, illegal immigrants have a small impact on emergency rooms, far less than uninsured Americans (PPIC, 2008). Nor are illegal immigrants even allowed to receive welfare benefits. They also pay into social security. I’m not saying there are no costs nor problems, but I prefer real-life 184

A CASE STUDY

arguments to your solution of privatizing schools, for instance, a phenomenon that is already proving itself to be problematic. If we are to talk about the illegal immigration problem, the law in Arizona and the duty of a social justice university to address the issue, we will have to go much deeper into the causes of the problem, causes like implementation of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for example. For now, I want to get back to the topic I addressed in my opening remarks, the ban on ethnic studies. Your position on ethnic studies is that such programs are a joke and are taught by people “too inept to contribute to the more traditional and intellectually taxing” subjects. You include in this critique sociology, literature, film, art, music and religion, gay studies, etc. You claim that none of these have ever made “any contribution whatsoever to advanced learning” and defy anyone to point to any discovery made in any of these fields that is true and new.” Wow, I don’t know where to start. Perhaps I should turn the tables on you and ask you to tell me what discoveries made in studying Western history or English literature or, indeed, economics has contributed to “advanced learning.” I am serious Walter. Tell me briefly what great benefits to the study of your field of economics our civilization truly is experiencing. It certainly cannot be an understanding of libertarianism, let alone agreement on what that is. And are not Western history and English literature considered “traditional” subjects? How are they more important to education than learning music and creating musicians in our world or in teaching people how to create great films? Considering that religions dominate the thinking of most institutions, do you not think it important for people to learn about their sources, beliefs, and consequences? You also ignore the research that shows that when people, especially young persons, can feel good about belonging to a group and can feel comfortable with a solid identity, they are much more likely to be good citizens on every level. This, of course, brings us to sociology. Toynbee said that in spite of all our technological advances, when it comes to human relationships we are still in the dark ages. Perhaps we are not studying sociology nearly enough, nor psychology, and certainly not un-whitewashed versions of history that promote authentic critical thinking. This brings us back full circle to ethnic studies as being one of the few places where such critical thinking about the world occurs. As for gay studies, I wonder how much violence and humility might be reduced in the world if students had an opportunity to study the facts about biological aspects of sexual preference or about how our Indigenous ancestors regarded individuals who had a different sexual orientation. I mean, Walter, you agreed at the outset that you want a world without violence. Do you truly believe that such education, from music to religion (which itself is a major cause of antigay and anti-woman attitudes) are not an antidote? Walter: Four Arrows, my gut does not twist much at all when I read your views. I enthusiastically agree with some of them such as the personal liberty to use drugs, and, also, international relations (we purposefully did not include a chapter on foreign policy, U.S. imperialism, wars, etc., out of fear that we would agree with each other too much, and it would make uninteresting reading for our audience). Of course I disagree with other positions of yours, but most of them are familiar to me, and 185

CHAPTER 5

thus no longer get me riled up. But, even where we disagree, we are not as far apart as some: for example, a North Korean Communist and a radical Muslim, I expect. Then, too, you speak of “the strange friendship that has emerged between us in spite of our differences.” I feel this, too, very strongly. You have the courage of your convictions. You don’t just mouth off about them; they are at the center of your life, as are mine to me. I like and admire you despite our differences. It is harder, much more difficult, to get angry at a friend, which factor, also, decreases the level of gut twisting I might otherwise experience. UNIONISM

Coercive unionism (Block, 2010) does indeed force a relationship between employers and employees that would otherwise not exist. Under voluntary unionism, in contrast, it would be legal for the firm to fire all its workers and hire new ones in their place. But present law prohibits this as an “unfair labor practice.” Curiously, extant legislation does not prevent all the employees of a company from quitting and seeking other jobs, leaving their boss high and dry. DISCRIMINATION

Of course the NBA discriminates. It does so not on racial grounds, but rather on the basis of skills in basketball. But, isn’t that, too, discrimination? However, blacks are disproportionately under-represented in other callings. There, cries of “systemic discrimination” are heard loud and clear. Why? I mainly meant this NBA example as a reductio ad absurdum of the entire anti discrimination fiasco. No one complains that professional basketball players “don’t look like America,” even though they are chosen on a fair basis (assuming that discrimination against short, fat, slow men is justified). Why should this cry be taken seriously in any other endeavour, then? If leftist human rights advocates were serious about non discrimination, they would indeed call for compulsory bi-sexuality. That they do not demonstrates that they do not themselves take their philosophy seriously; they shrink from its logical implications, happily. Better yet to give them up entirely, and to embrace the libertarian notion of free association, where people are free to associate with people of their own choosing, and are not forced, at the point of a gun, to interact with people against their will. I am indeed dealing with the real issues here. I oppose both the coercive segregation of the Jim Crow era, and, also the compulsory integration of the present epoch. Should a black restaurant owner be forced to seat and serve a member of the KKK or the Nazi party? Yes or no, Four Arrows? If yes, at least you are logically consistent, and are undeterred by this very powerful reductio ad absurdum. But, that is not a position I would want to defend. For, surely, this black entrepreneur has a right to freely associate with those he wishes to take on as customers, and only those people, if there is any justice in the world. On the other hand, if your answer to my query is no, then why oh why should a white racist be compelled to serve a black customer at his lunch counter? Is not sauce for the goose sauce for the 186

A CASE STUDY

gander? And, I don’t want to hear about, in this context, who was lynching whom decades ago. I am not now discussing that despicable practice. Rather, I am trying to discuss racial discrimination and free association in a logical manner. I never said that a bussing system which allowed black people to ride in the front of the bus “actually happened.” Rather, it is my contention that the reason it did not occur was due to laws prohibiting it, not the operation of the free enterprise system (Roback, 1986). I am delighted that you refer to Martin Luther King, Jr., and not to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Does this mean that, due to his plagiarism, you do not think he deserves the doctorate he was improperly awarded? Does this indicate you do not consider him a proper academic role model, since true scholars do not engage in plagiarism? If so, I wonder why you think that such a man deserves to be honoured by a holiday? If not, do you favour plagiarism? Are you indifferent to it? Ordinarily, I appreciate a joke as well as the next man. But, I am deadly serious here. I do not see any humor at all in tolerating, let alone celebrating, such a serious deviation from proper intellectual practice. Four Arrows, I am very curious as to why you think I “need an ethnic study course to remember the many blacks murdered in the south, etc.” Have I ever dismissed this as unimportant? Have I ever deprecated the severity of this horrid chapter in U.S. history? Have I ever, horrors!, supported the murder of these innocent people? If you have evidence to back up such claims, please cite it and I shall forthwith renounce such statements of mine. If not, I really think you might want to consider withdrawing that statement of yours. OIL SPILL In your view, Four Arrows, the “‘free market’ (why the scare quotes around this phrase? Don’t you at least concede that there is such a thing as the free market? In contrast, I readily acknowledge the existence of socialism, compulsory unionism, Communism, fascism, and other philosophies I oppose) philosophy … is … most responsible for the horrors of … the… British Petroleum catastrophe.” Not so, not so. The guilty party is, wait for it, yes, government. How so? For one thing, in its “1990 Oil Protection Act” it capped BP’s financial responsibility for damages at $75 million (Law Info, 2010). If this is not state monopoly corporate capitalism in action (as opposed to laissez faire capitalism), then nothing is. For another, the government, under control of leftist watermelon environmentalists, was instrumental in making it difficult for oil drilling to take place closer inshore on the continental shelf, where it would have been safer. Instead, the oil companies were forced to drill further offshore, in deeper water, which is less easy to control. Moreover, this BP installation was approved by the Obama Administration (Limbaugh, 2010). According to Gather (2010) “It turns out that the oil industry’s sudden interest in deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was fueled (sic) by government incentives i.e. profit - not by environmental regulation.” But this is just plain confused. Yes, 187

CHAPTER 5

of course, a company can earn profit by taking advantage of unwise and immoral government programs, inspired by socialist environmentalists. But the fault lies with the state apparatus and its corporate henchmen that created these programs in the first place; it cannot properly be laid at the door of free enterprise. Even this commentator admits that the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995 was the source of the problem. But who passed this Act? The free market system or government? To ask this is to answer it. And, of course, if there was a full free market in operation, the Gulf of Mexico would have been owned privately, and thus completely in competent private hands. Then, truly private entrepreneurs would have been in charge, and not the governmental Minerals Management Service (Solomon, 2010), which was too busy accepting bribes, engaging in pornography and drugs (Straub, 2010), to do any serious inspecting. Four Arrows, you will undoubtedly object that this is all part of my “fantasy world.” But, it is your model that is now in charge, with disastrous results. Have we really learned so little from the economic experience of the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Eastern Europe and all the rest that we would put our prosperity, and, indeed, our very lives, into the hands of governmental central planning? This BP episode is so far removed from true free enterprise, for which you blame it, that I wonder: is there anything about the capitalist marketplace that you admire? Is there anything regarding governmental central planning and regulation that you disfavour? BRIMELOW ON IMMIGRATION

Four Arrows, I am grateful to you for pointing out to me that I “could have offered more and better reasons for (my) disagreement with Brimelow’s claims relating to illegal immigrants taxing the hospitals, etc.” And, your point that “illegal immigrants have a small impact on emergency rooms, far less than uninsured Americans” is a good one. We are also in accord on the evils of NAFTA, although, I imagine, for opposite reasons (you, because it takes us too far in the direction of free trade, me since I think it is really a customs union, and thus a pathetic excuse for the full free trade that I support.) ETHNIC “STUDIES”

Regarding the ban on ethnic “studies,” I really have no dog in this fight. I oppose the government’s prohibition of teaching anything in private schools; but it is my understanding that this Arizona ban applies to public schools. Since I think the latter are unjustified in any case, what is taught there is rather beside the point. They should not exist in the first place, and thus should not teach any subject at all. I agree with you that there are merits in studying music and art. But, not everything important, I think, should be studied at a university. Chess, bridge, carpentry, billiards, are all interesting subjects, and important to many people, but still make poor subjects for a university, I think. On the other hand, as a libertarian, I would of course not oppose private colleges from offering such subjects, including, of course, 188

A CASE STUDY

feminists “studies,” queer “studies,” black “studies,” and all the rest of that litany. But, I predict, none of these would succeed in the intellectual marketplace. As to the benefits of history, literature, and, yes, economics, if we had an entire chapter to discuss this (I greatly regret our book will soon end; I find writing it with you such fun), I would be happy to wax on about them. In the present context, I will not dignify your question with an answer. No, wait; I changed my mind. It is unfair of me to evade your direct queries; I wouldn’t appreciate it if you treated mine in so cavalier a manner. So, here a brief answer. It is important to study all history (not just the Western variety) since it is the record of the experience of our species. “He who is ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it” On the other hand, since Western civilization has by far made the greatest strides in human development, I would place greater emphasis on it. Literature (along with psychology, anthropology) studies the way we relate to each other. Of course there have been some good sociologists (Oppenheimer), but most sociology departments, nowadays, are filled to the brim with Marxist feminists. How can any rational man respect that? As for economics, this is the study of how men cooperate in order to prosper. What could be more important than that for the survival of the human race? Four Arrows, you mention “research that shows that when people, especially young persons can feel good about belonging to a group and can feel comfortable with a solid identity, they are much more likely to be good citizens on every level.” I stipulate, arguendo, that this is correct. But why need this be taught at a university level. Higher education should push out the frontiers of knowledge, in my personal assessment, not be concerned about “feeling good.” If you don’t feel good, say I, go get some ice cream, or see a shrink, or take up handball. VIOLENCE AND LIBERTARIANISM

A point of clarification. As a libertarian, I do not necessarily “want a world without violence.” Boxing, karate, judo and wrestling are violent. They are fine with me, given the consent of the participants. Also, it takes violence to stop murderers, rapists, unionists, but I favour such use of aggression. A more accurate way of putting this matter is that I want a world without initiatory violence. Namely, I want a world where rights and justice are respected; thus, it is it quite alright to use violence to protect these values. If gay, etc., studies really reduced initiatory violence, I would support it; not as a university course, but, still, I would favour it. Care to offer any evidence for the contention that these queer, black, feminist “studies” courses, reduce violence? As far as I can see, they are intellectual backwaters. They are a sort of welfare program for students who shouldn’t be at university in the first place, because they lack the brainpower to survive traditional courses in math, chemistry, history, and, yes, economics too. Four Arrows: Walter, I appreciate your words about our growing friendship that exists in spite of our differences. You say you have heard the concerns I express in my effort to understand your position often and long enough to “no longer get riled up.” For me, however, I’ve not heard your rationale for your positions. I also try to 189

CHAPTER 5

separate beliefs from the individual who holds them. What causes me the “gut twists” is thus not about you per se, but about how people use your arguments in ways I think are largely responsible for destroying most life systems on earth and for the wars we both abhor. I do not believe in socialism, communism, capitalism or libertarianism any more than I believe in any of the world’s major religions. I believe that the so-called free market plays into and encourages a culture of greed and injustice. I prefer a system similar to what our Indigenous ancestors practiced, one where people sharing equally the fruits of labor without being forced to do so. I want to see a system where individuals in the culture truly realize that all life on earth has intrinsic value (not just humans) and is interconnected in ways that require an emphasis on empathy and cooperation as opposed to selfishness and competition. While I am briefly referring to your free market ideas, I want to address your questions above where you asked me why I put the scare quotes around the phrase and if I am willing to concede that there is such a thing as the free market? Amigo, I do not understand how you can tell me over and over that the pure free market does not exist and has never existed, and then ask me such questions! This baffles me as much as a statement you made on page 56 of the last chapter where you said, “I defy you or anyone else to mention even one flaw in “free market capitalism,” in contrast to what we actually have at present.” How can I concede that there is something that does not exist? Throughout this book I have expressed the problem with your arguing against real life ideas that counter pie-in-the-sky ideology that ignores the problems the ideas attempt to address. I hope this explains my scare quotes. The danger in the arguments you use typically use to support your beliefs partially reveals itself, for example, in your inability to see the difference between a murderous KKK clansman (or a Nazi) and black person who wants a cup of coffee. You want me to answer your question and not ignore it about whether the black restaurant owner should be forced to seat and serve a member of the KKK? Yes, if there is no way of knowing that the customer is a KKK member, i.e. if the clansperson is not wearing a sheet over his/her head or otherwise demeaning black people. Yes, I would support a law that says the restaurant owner cannot guess the background of its customers and refuse to serve them based on the guess. My answer would be no if the person came in as an obvious KKK member with his sheet on. No law should require a restaurant owner to allow such an obvious incitement to violence, if only relating to symbolism. I would have to study civil laws to find where there are laws about an entrepreneur’s rights to avoid violence in her establishment, but you get the point I hope. On the other hand, you compare this to a white racists being compelled to serve a black customer. The racists need do no research to find out if the man is black of course. So why might the racists refuse to serve this person? Well, if the black man came in with a knife in his hands shouting epitaphs against white people, then I say he would have the right to evict him in the same way the KKK person was kicked out. But being black alone, however, is not at all comparable to wearing a KKK sheet. The latter is a symbol of hatred and violence. What is being black a symbol of Walter? Well, it has been a 190

A CASE STUDY

symbol of things less than human, an attitude held by those who never took an ethnic studies course about African Americans or the equivalent of such a course. This of course brings us full tilt back to our main topic. You contradict your strong opposition to ethnic studies as being a joke when you say “It is important to study all history (not just the Western variety) since it is the record of the experience of our species and refer to the idea that he who is ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it.” Thanks Walter, you have just offered a splendid support for ethnic studies at all grade levels. I’m not saying that American Indian, African American, Hispanic or even gay/lesbian studies have to dominate the curriculum, but if you admit to the importance of more than a white-washed or cursory study of any history, then you have made my argument for me. By the way, my mention of how ethnic studies helps people who continually suffer discrimination to gain an identity through solidarity (better than ice cream) related to the Arizona law which bans ethnic studies only in K-12. I was not using this reason for higher education though it applies there as well to the degree it was lacking in K-12. I would have used your reason primarily, however, for supporting it at the university level. I am going to ignore your racist statement that claims “Western civilization has by far made the greatest strides in human development.” If you had taken more ethnic studies, not only would you be more respectful of MLK’s contributions to stopping the hanging of black people, but you would also learn of, for example, a list of contributions made to the United States’ way of life that comes from the original Indigenous inhabitants of this land. Learning all there is to learn about the foundation of our system of government, to many of the foods we eat might make you ashamed of such a statement. If you want me to provide such an education in this chapter, ask and I will offer it, but you as an interested researcher and our readers can surely do this on your own. Furthermore, if you read my text, Critical Neurophilosophy and Indigenous Wisdom (2009), or Unlearning the Language of Conquest (2008) or even just look around at the current state of “human development” and compare it to the facts about Pre-Columbian Indigenous life (and don’t forget the “happiness” study in Africa) you might at least retract your statement. To your credit, Walter, besides giving such a good reason for ethnic studies in higher education, you do also offer some hope when you say “if such studies really reduced initiatory violence, I would support it.” (I realize you add, “though not as a university course.” As to this last disclaimer, are you saying that higher education should have nothing to do with preparing citizens who can help us attain happiness, health and peace on earth? Just what do you think the goal of any university courses should ultimately point towards?!) Let’s return again to your dismissing the benefit of people feeling less defensive as a result of learning about their own cultures, whether in K-12 or higher ed. Would this not prevent initiator violence perhaps? At least better than ice cream or handball (well, maybe not better than handball). As for offering ethnic studies course to all groups in higher education, if you want to understand how this might reduce initiatory violence, I suggest you read my friend Sam Keen’s text, Faces of the Enemy (1991). He shows clearly what I am sure you would recognize as a truth that the less understanding we have about a culture, the more enmity is likely to 191

CHAPTER 5

exist against it and the more likely oppression, bullying or violence. If I come to university having been born in a southern state where I grew up to think that blacks are inferior; or from a typical mid-western state were people are raised thinking that it is true what a professor like anthropologist James Clifton argues in his book, The Invented Indian: “acknowledging anything positive in the native past is an entirely wrongheaded proposition because no genuine Indian accomplishments have ever really been substantiated (1965, p. 33),” then I am much more likely to take my aggressions out on a black or red person. Walter, your statement about Western civilizations making the greatest strides in human development (I note you said human development and not technology), is a part of the “whitewashing” of history I attack in many of my books. Perhaps your lack of work in ethnic studies is what is behind your blindness your equating a KKK member with the average black citizen or your willingness for a free market, real or imaginary to hurt or oppress people. Maybe this is why all you can think of when you ponder MLK is that as a young doctoral student he engaged in plagiarism. If my goal is to understand your position, this is what I will come away from this book with. You did not take enough courses about people and real life histories. You are thus “repeating” the same prejudices and beliefs that have caused our historical problems. Bingo. This is why you so easily write off MLK’s work because of his university plagiarizing. Come on Walter, U.S. Presidents, including Lincoln and Obama have been caught plagiarizing, as well as dozens of university presidents. You sort of did it with your misquote of George Santayana about repeating the past if unaware, and he probably got it from someone else. Imagine a young black man in 1950s going for a doctoral degree with the pressure on him. Even Boston University after an indepth study of his using other scholar’s ideas and words in portions of his dissertation admitted that “it still makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship (Baldwin, 1992, p. 298).” King saw himself as a preacher appropriating theological scholarship. He was trying to get through a white dominated school so as to give his message more credibility. He wanted to learn and teach about non-violent resistance and stop the discrimination and violence against blacks. The impact of his work, which most of the world recognizes, was far more important than the rules for academic writing, not to mention he was in college during a time when many universities were not even allowing black people to attend! Your inability to separate the wrongness of plagiarism from such context to the degree that you dismiss the entire man and his contributions shows the prejudice, the black and white thinking (no pun intended) and lack of empathy that is common among free market capitalist who care only for the bottom line and themselves often practice corruption and deceit whilst falsely advertising their products and doing no benefit to anyone but stockholders. And this brings me to your blaming government rather than typical free market machinations for the BP catastrophe. Yes, no doubt corporate-government cronyism was responsible for reducing clean up and punitive costs for oil companies, but this obviously involves government de-regulation in favour of free market rhetoric. Your distinction between corporate capitalism and laissez faire capitalism is meaningless if you are using it to defend BP. So are your attacks on unions. The lack of a union 192

A CASE STUDY

policy for certain safety requirements is already surfacing as a possible cause of the problem, so in addition to a fight for unregulated (same as laissez faire) policies being held responsible so should we blame anti-unionism in the same way we can blame it on the mining catastrophe we discussed previously. It was free market as is working in the world today that was responsible and this includes its use of money to corrupt government officials. You can’t weasel out of this by saying, well, this is not fair because in this case corporations and governments were involved so pure free market did not exist. I say you cannot tell me this because now you are telling me that your free market does exist in real-life. Furthermore, your argument about government not letting oil companies drill near shore as the reason BP was in deep water is not only incorrect but it reveals yet more contradiction in your argument. You say Big oil is in bed with government, hence the low payment cap. And then you say that government regulation, which is obviously absent because of cronyism, is all of a sudden too strong when it comes to where companies drill? You can’t have it both ways Walter. As for why oil companies are drilling in deep water, it is because there is no more easy oil available. The natural tendency is to go after the low hanging fruit, first; but this has already been done. This is one reason the U.S. invaded Iraq and set up the invasion into Afghanistan. (Yes, I said “set up.” I wonder if you have read a book I and six other scholars wrote, entitled, The Hidden History of 9/11, which essentially proves that the official story of what happened that day could not possible be true. There has never ever been a steel high rise building that has fallen into its own “foot print” (straight down) owing to a fire of any intensity on any floor. It requires carefully planned explosives.) Heck, the very first offshore oil well was drilled in 1947 nearly 17 km off the Louisiana coast in the Gulf of Mexico and in only fifteen feet of water. No, companies are going where the oil is. Governments, because they are in bed with the oil companies, are not preventing them from drilling close in as in the case of Santa Barbara’s coast. They can drill where they want (although now, public pressure will temporarily curtail some activity no doubt.) The mere fact that you quoted Rush Limbaugh on this in the same chapter that you dismiss MRK is beyond my ability to understand where your thinking has originated. That you quoted Rush Limbaugh actually says it all. All of this brings me back to your opposition to higher education’s responsibility and right to help people learn the truth about various cultures, one’s own and others’. Allow me to close with some words about violence against homosexuals. Need I cite the statistics? Do I need to really convince you that there is a connection between homophobia and violence against homosexuals? Well, here is just one I found on the Internet. In a 1999 survey of 500 sexualminority students from 32 states, one study found that more than 90 percent had heard anti-homosexual remarks, with one third coming from teachers. Two-thirds of the students experienced verbal or physical harassment at school. Two-thirds of the students experienced verbal or physical harassment at school. The Massachusetts Board of Education found that sexual-minority students are at significantly increased risk for violence. They are three times more likely to be the victims of weapon attacks at school and four times more likely to attempt suicide. 193

CHAPTER 5

I am not going to cite these. You will have to find them on your own. It is more important for me to get the information out there than to give credit to anyone for saying it at this point. So go ahead and dismiss all my work now for this blatant plagiarism of mine and dismiss all my work as you did King’s. As for the bottom line, look up “contact hypothesis” and read some studies that support the idea that when people learn about other groups, like homosexuals, and have contact with them, they become more empathetic and are less likely to create enmity against them that leads to violence. So, now do you think ethnic studies are a good idea? You know, the history of other cultures? Walter: I think you make a good point, Four Arrows, a very, very incisive one, about “how people use (my) arguments in ways … (that) are largely responsible for destroying most life systems on earth and for the wars we both abhor.” This shows an excellent understanding on your part about what is really going on in political economy: many businessmen don’t really favour free enterprise. Rather, all too often they support monopoly-corporate-state-capitalism, or fascism. They are apt to say that they favour free markets in general, but that their industry is different, and needs subsidies, regulations that dis-accommodate their competitors, etc; in other words, they are very good at utilizing the rhetoric of free enterprise, in order to enhance their evil goals. I have had occasion before, to mention a Marxist historian who has well and truly put his finger on this issue: Kolko (1963), more than any other leftist has well and truly seen the difference between what I have been characterizing as “good” versus “bad” corporations. Another writer who clearly saw this distinction was Rand (1957). No clearer exposition of this phenomenon has been drawn between supporters of laissez faire capitalism, as portrayed by her fictional characters Hank Reardon and Dagny Taggert, on the one hand, and Wesley Mouch and Jim Taggert on the other. But, does this mean that supporters of economic freedom should drop our quest, just because some opponents improperly appropriate our rhetoric? I can’t see my way clear to agreeing with you on this. Take some other cases in point: charlatans adopt medical terminology to promote their snake oil sales. Should legitimate doctors eschew the language of physicians because these others are playing fast and loose with it? Hardly. Ronald Reagan employed libertarian rhetoric better than any politician in my memory, with the one exception of Ron Paul. Yet, under Governor Reagan, California’s budget rose, and when he was president of the U.S., federal spending increased. If libertarians are to be precluded from publicly supporting free enterprise, the gold standard, private property rights, because Reagan so abused these concepts, Ron Paul would not be allowed to mention them, even though he sincerely supports them. CULTURE OF GREED

Four Arrows, you own an automobile. When you went out shopping for it, I presume, you narrowed down your choices to the type and variety that most closely resembled 194

A CASE STUDY

your desired criterion. Then, let us say, you noted that this particular vehicle could be had from five different dealers. Each of them, let us suppose, offered you the same identical product. Did you make your purchase from the one who had the highest or the lowest price (assuming distance travelled to obtain the car, financing terms, service facilities, were all identical)? You see where I am going with this? I now accuse you of being “greedy” in that you shopped around and got the best bargain available. But I don’t stop here. I accuse you, also, of being “greedy” in your grocery shopping. Especially if you buy only once a week or so, you are likely to purchase items 1, 2 and 3 in store A, and items 4, 5 and 6 in store B, so as to take advantage of the lowest costs afforded in each, you greedy creature, you. But, your greed does not stop there, not by a long shot. I note that our book will be brought out by the Sense Publishing company. Suppose that some other publisher offered us a better deal on royalties, publicity, etc., before we had signed on with Sense Publishing. Would we have engaged this other publishing house, assuming all other things (price of the book, advertising budget, other support) equal? Well, yes, but only if we were “greedy.” You are now employed by the Fielding Graduate University and paid a salary of $x. Suppose that another University offered to pay you double that amount, and holding constant all other considerations (friendships, loyalty, ability to pursue your research, quality of students, moving costs, etc.) Would you take up this new offer? If so, you are the greedy person I know you to be. If not, you are really weird. I have every reason to believe that you are greedy, too, in your life as a scholar. You chose me to be your co-author on this book because in your view I was the best person to help promote your goals in this regard. And this holds true, in your personal life as well. I deduce that you proposed marriage to your wife because she was the woman who, in your assessment, could best promote your goals in this regard. You could have proposed to any number of other women, but you did not, since in your value scales, marrying your present wife would most enhance your profit in the marriage market. All I can say to you, Four Arrows, is: greedy, greedy, greedy. That being the case, why condemn others for doing precisely as you have done, and continue to do, in every aspect of your life, you greedster. Do you seriously maintain that your Indigenous ancestors were free of this sort of greed? If you do, you don’t know them very well at all either. COOPERATION AND COMPETITION

Four Arrows, you “want to see a system … (that places) … an emphasis on empathy and cooperation as opposed to selfishness and competition.” Let me ask you in this regard, how in your view is the decision to be made as to what type of operation (say, a bank, a filling station, a pharmacy, a restaurant), is to occupy the newly vacant corner plot of Broadway and Elm street, in Anytown USA? The implicit aim of this exercise, which occurs every day in the economy, is to choose that function which will most likely maximize the satisfaction of the 195

CHAPTER 5

consumers. That is, the market is a vast cooperative institution, the end point of which is to reconcile consumer “sovereignty” with commercial decision making; through the market process we choose which of these four options will best promote the welfare of the consumers. The criterion on the basis of which this determination is made is, of course, profits: that type of business which drives the deepest wedge between revenues and costs will be deemed to bring about the greatest utility for the customers. For example, if the bank can earn a 5% profit, the filling station 10%, while the pharmacy can accrue 15%, but the restaurant can skin the public to the tune of 20% profit, then we are justified in deducing that the latter is the use that will best accord with the wishes of the buying public. How shall this cooperative effort be accomplished? The competitive method is clear: various would-be users of this real estate will compete with each other to see which entrepreneur will bid the most to either rent this bit of real estate, or to purchase it outright. So the banker, the pharmacist, the restaurateur and the fuel dispenser will each offer to pay to the owner what they think his property is worth. Or, the latter will set a very high price for his holdings, and then keep reducing it until some business firm meets his demand. In either scenario, there will be competition between the various would-be users of this plot of land. What is the alternative to this system of cooperation through free market competition? There is only one other option: someone, not the owner of the property, must make that decision. Even under communism, someone has to decide how that particular piece of real estate will be used. This holds true whether this process is called fascism, or communism, or socialism, or some other variant of cooperation (perhaps based upon the tradition of your Indigenous ancestors), or “economic democracy” where we all elect the central planner who gets to decide how to run which bits of land, capital, labor, etc. All I can say about this is that countries that rely on competition to promote this sort of cooperation do far better at it, at least in terms of per capital GDP (Gwartney, 1996), than those that try to short circuit the market and pick alternative ways of making these rather mundane decisions. The philosophical point I want to make is that cooperation and competition are not polar opposites. Indeed, in the free enterprise system, the former is attained through the process of the latter. Moreover, your dismissal of competition comes with particular ill grace from a national class horseman such as yourself, Four Arrows. You were selected as an alternative member of the U.S. equestrian team for the 1996 Olympics. In order to attain that very prestigious honor, you had to compete with numerous other riders. How, then, can you be so bitterly opposed to competition, when you yourself have engaged in it in this regard? But, you can infer from my remarks above, this is only the tip of the iceberg of the competition you have engaged in. I have no doubt that there were other men who would have liked to marry your wife. You out-competed them all for her hand in marriage. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for taking part in such a competition? You also successfully competed for your present job as a professor at Fielding Graduate University. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of other scholars who would have been more than glad to have that university post. Yet, you rascal, you out-competed them for that, too. And that pair of shoes you 196

A CASE STUDY

are now wearing: you competed for that, too. And that horse of yours, Brioso. Guess how he ended up in your possession? Yes, through a process of competition. Is there no end to your competitiveness? All throughout this entire book, Four Arrows, you have been competing with me for the “hearts and minds” of our readers. Sir, have you no shame? (☺) Then there is the question of which of us is out of contact with reality. I full well recognize greed, self interest, competition, etc., and look for ways to channel these very human attributes to good ends, for example, via Smith’s (1776) invisible hand. You, in contrast, take the utopian view that these characteristics should not exist, and pine for a long ago day when they did not, at least insofar as what “our Indigenous ancestors practiced.” Tell me, Four Arrows, was there not competition in that milieu over the best cuts of meat from the hunt, over the best looking females, over the fastest horses, etc., or, was this society really “one where people (were) sharing equally the fruits of labor.” If you say this sort of competition did not exist, then I reply that your ancestors were to that extent not human. If you allow that it did take place, the obviously correct answer, then you must take back your claim that libertarianism is based on “pie-in-the-sky ideology,” and admit, that yours, not mine, is out of touch with what exists. The point that cannot be ignored is that given scarcity, people want more than is available to all of them collectively, there is no way to avoid competition. This process may take different forms under socialism, Naziism, communism, the mixed economy, free enterprise (which includes the potlatches of Indigenous peoples). But competition there must always and necessarily be. This stems not from any given human system; rather it is based on the primordial fact of scarcity: there is not enough out there to satisfy all our desires. We therefore must, perforce, compete for them in some way or other. “FREE MARKET ” SCARE QUOTES

Four Arrows, you justify your use of scare quotes for “free market” on the ground that this system has never existed in perfect or pure form. Oxygen never exists in the real world in pure form. There are no perfect shoes. Your horse, Brioso, was not a perfect example of that species. Your Indigenous ancestors were imperfect human beings. Yet, you would scarcely put scare quotes around “oxygen” or “shoes” or “Brioso” or “Indigenous ancestors.” ‘Tis the same for libertarianism. You will not find any Platonic examples of this system existent either. And, of course, the same goes for fascism, socialism, communism, etc. And, yet, you don’t place scare quotes around any of them, nor, dismiss any of these other systems on that ground alone (that they have never fully existed; there are no perfect forms of them out there). Yet, you single out and reject libertarianism on this ground. You do so again and again, all throughout this book. Indeed, this almost seems to be (but of course is not) your main (only?!) argument against economic freedom. Why the exception in this one case? Why rebuff libertarianism, alone, for something it shares with each and every other entity or system, in the real world. Why is it impermissible for me to advocate pure libertarianism, just because it has never, at least so far, fully existed? 197

CHAPTER 5

Countries that have more closely (not perfectly, mind you) followed free enterprise have been more prosperous and just than those that have not. I never tire of mentioning East vs. West Germany, or North vs. South Korea. The first two of these pairs were further away from laissez faire capitalism than the second two, even though the latter were of course not perfect examples. Are we not allowed to learn any lessons from these episodes, because West Germany and South Korea were not 100% libertarian? States Rockwell (2008, 328–330): If you think about it, the hysteria is astonishing, even terrifying. The market economy has created unfathomable prosperity and, decade by decade, century by century, miraculous feats of innovation, production, distribution, and social coordination. To the free market, we owe all material prosperity, all leisure time, our health and longevity, our huge and growing population, nearly everything we call life itself. Capitalism and capitalism alone has rescued the human race from degrading poverty, rampant sickness, and early death. In the absence of the capitalist economy and all its underlying institutions, the world’s population would, over time, shrink to a fraction of its current size, with whatever was left of the human race systematically reduced to subsistence, eating only what can be hunted or gathered. Even the institution that is the source of the word civilization itself—the city—depends on trade and commerce, and cannot exist without them. And this is only to mention the economic benefits of capitalism. It is also an expression of freedom. It is not so much a social system but the natural result of a society wherein individual rights are respected, where businesses, families, and every form of association are permitted to flourish in the absence of coercion, theft, war, and aggression. Capitalism protects the weak from the strong, granting choice and opportunity to masses who once had no choice but to live in a state of dependency on the politically connected and their enforcers. Must we compare the record of capitalism with that of the state, which, looking at the sweep of this past century alone, killed hundreds of millions of people in its wars, famines, camps, and deliberate starvation campaigns? And the record of central planning of the type now being urged on American enterprise is perfectly abysmal. Let the state attempt to eradicate anything—unemployment, poverty, drugs, business cycles, illiteracy, crime, terrorism—and it ends up creating more of it than would have been the case if it had done nothing at all. The state has created nothing. The market has created everything. But let the stock market fall 20 percent in 18 months, and what happens? The leading intellectuals discover anew why the Bolshevik Revolution was a pretty good 198

A CASE STUDY

idea, even if the results weren’t what idealists might have hoped. We are told that we must rethink the very foundations of civilization itself. In every society, there are greed, fraud, and theft. But let these vices rear their heads in a socialist society—though the norm is a continual and brutal struggle for power—and the fact goes unnoticed or is attributed to the remnants of capitalist thinking. Let these vices appear in a largely free economy, and the cry goes out: take away the freedom to trade and put the state in charge! BLACK LUNCH COUNTER, KKK CUSTOMER

As a libertarian, I favour the law of free association: no one should be forced to interact with anyone against his will. I apply this to all of life. There should be no forced integration, nor segregation, in business, personal relations, romance, friendships, sex, whatever. In my view, the white racist should no more be forced to serve the black man “a cup of coffee” in his restaurant, than in his home. If the black person has a “right” to be served a cup of coffee in the former place, then he has an equal right to such service in the latter. Yet, few people would go along with the claim that the white racist must serve coffee to black people in his home. Would you, Four Arrows? One response to this charge of logical inconsistency is that people should have privacy in their homes. There, you can discriminate to your heart’s content, against whomever you wish. But why not in business too? If there is a right to not being excluded on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, etc., then it should apply, if logic is to be our guide, everywhere. After all, we do have a right not to be murdered, and this surely transcends the personal-business distinction. That is, people have a right not to be murdered in other people’s homes, but they have an equal right not to be done in at their places of business. Surely, Four Arrows, you don’t think that the right not to be murdered changes by one iota when we move from the personal to the commercial sphere and back? If not, then why does the so called right not to be discriminated against play out so differently for you when we consider a man’s home or his restaurant? Another possible defense against this charge is that “a man’s home is his castle,” but when he ventures out of it, and engages in commercial activity, then it must be “open to the public,” the entire public, that is. But why does the racist’s business have to serve all consumers? Why can’t his store be open only to those members of the public he wants to deal with, such as, say, white Christians? And what about the Shabazz stores of Malcolm X’s? Posit that they were only there to cater to black members of the public. Would it have been justified, Four Arrows, to cart Malcolm X off to jail for failing to abide by your views on this matter? As I see things, the only time physical proscriptions are justified is when violence is threatened or indulged in. Mere failure to associate with white customers would, therefore, not justify arresting anyone associated with a Shabazz establishment who refused to serve whites. Four Arrows, I fear you have evaded this point of mine about freedom of association. Instead of responding to it, you change the subject to the issue of my 199

CHAPTER 5

“inability to see the difference between a murderous KKK clansman (or a Nazi) and black person who wants a cup of coffee.” Of course I see a difference between these two very different kinds of people. But what does that have to do with the rights of the matter? So, please, answer: do you think that personal and commercial rights are equivalent? If not, why not? I am attempting to hold a serious conversation with you about the right to freely associate, and you accuse me of “equating a KKK member with the average black citizen.” Come on, let’s get serious here. Why is it that the Jim Crow south had to pass laws mandating that blacks had to have a different water fountain, could not legally be served at lunch counters, must sit in the back of the bus, etc? If all whites in this geographical area were at that time racists, these laws would not have been necessary. My hypothesis is that the racists in charge of government in the southern states knew full well that there would be plenty of whites who would be glad to associate with blacks, commercially; they only way they could put a stop to this was via legislation. Also, it is likely that members of the southern ruling class were cognizant of the economic analysis I offered at the beginning of this chapter. Thus, they knew that if free markets were allowed, there would be a tendency for racist store owners to lose out in the competitive battle to those with a lesser or zero taste for discrimination. INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE

Four Arrows, I think I am more of an adherent of free speech rights than you. You heavily criticize “… such an obvious incitement to violence…” This leads me to believe that in a society you support, incitement to violence would be prohibited. In contrast, the libertarian position is based on individual responsibility. Rothbard (1982, 80) nails this fallacy. If Mr. Green gets up onto a soap box and screams to his audience: “‘Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!’ and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. ‘Inciting to riot,’ therefore, is a pure exercise of a man’s right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime. On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others—more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut—there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not, properly to be charged simply with ‘incitement.’” (See also on this Block, 2010). ETHNIC STUDIES

Nice try, but, I don’t think that I at all “contradict (my) strong opposition to ethnic studies as being a joke when (I) say ‘It is important to study all history (not just the Western variety) since it is the record of the experience of our species and refer to 200

A CASE STUDY

the idea that he who is ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it.’” As I see matters, history is a first rate subject, and, with of course some exceptions, historians as a general rule are highly competent to study it. In contrast, in very sharp contrast indeed, it is my assessment of professors of ethnic studies, feminist studies, black studies, queer studies and all the rest, that they are incompetents with a leftist, Marxist bias. So, my support for studying “all history (not just the Western variety)” does not at all imply advocacy of these special “studies.” If it be “racist” to claim that “Western civilization has by far made the greatest strides in human development” then count me as a racist. When one carefully looks back at all of human history, one cannot but be amazed that most progress is accounted for by virtually all males, representing a relatively few types of civilizations (Murray, 2003). For example, all of the following are white males, representative, broadly speaking, of the Judeo-Christian heritage: Archimedes, Aristotle, Johann Sebastian Bach, Christiaan Barnard, Frederic Bastiat, Gary Becker, Ludwig Beethoven, Alexander Graham Bell, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Niels Bohr, Sergey Brin, James Buchanan, Paul Cézanne, Denton Cooley, Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Crick, John Dalton, Charles Darwin, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Euclid, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, Pierre de Fermat, Bobby Fischer, Benjamin Franklin, Milton Friedman, Henry Ford, Benjamin Franklin, Galen, Bill Gates, Galileo Galilei, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Vincent van Gogh, Johaness Gutenberg, William Harvey, Stephen Hawking, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Werner Heisenberg, Hippocrates, Robert Jarvik, Steve Jobs, Gary Kasparov, Johannes Kepler, Antoine Lavoisier, Joseph Lister, Anton van Leeuwenhoek, John Locke, Maimonides, James Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Moore, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, John von Neumann, Isaac Newton, Albert Nock, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling, Pablo Picasso, Larry Page, Max Planck, Chaim Potok, Joseph Priestly, Pythagoras, Rembrandt van Rijn, Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen, Murray Rothbard, Ernest Rutherford, Jonas Salk, William Shakespeare, Adam Smith, Lysander Spooner, Leo Tolstoi, Alan Turing, Leonardo da Vinci, James D. Watson, James Watt, Eli Whitney, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Wilbur and Orville Wright.1 I think it would be hard to match this list, the tip of a veritable iceberg, with members of any other ethnic cohort. I have no doubt that the study of other cultures, peoples, can sometimes (but far fromalways) reduce violence between them. Ethnic studies “scholars,” no doubt, do that, to some extent. In this regard, I would like this to be done, but more competently, by legitimate scholars. Remember, I regard this entire part of the university as a sort of welfare or bribery payment to women, blacks, homosexuals. Let us stipulate, arguendo, that “the less understanding we have about a culture, the more enmity is likely to exist against it and the more likely oppression, bullying or violence.” It still does not logically follow that feminist, black and queer studies professors would be the best ones to carry out this task. But, more often, ethnic studies sow hatred between groups. Feminist studies, for example, foments loathing against men, black studies targets whites to the same end, and queer studies occupies a similar role vis a vis the straights. In any case, just because X can reduce violence does not mean it should be propagated at the 201

CHAPTER 5

university level. Valium, sleeping pills, for instance, promotes docility. But the connection between these drugs and higher education is hardly a reasonable one. PLAGIARISM

I note that, along with me, you still do not refer to Martin Luther King, Jr. as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. You full well realize, I assume, that in some communities (black, “progressive,” socialist) failure to mention this title would be considered racist. So, I congratulate you as my fellow racist, Four Arrows; this shows great courage on your part, and I admire you for this. We both fully realize that if the contents of one’s Ph.D. dissertation are heavily plagiarized, such a person does not deserve to be awarded the doctorate. Yes, indeed, “Boston University after an in-depth study of his using other scholar’s ideas and words in portions of his dissertation admitted that ‘it still makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship.’” This merely indicates cowardice at that institution of higher learning. The issue with regard to not rescinding MLK’s Ph.D. degree is beside the point of whether or not it “makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship.” Rather, the only relevant issue for this university in its decision not to rescind, was, did he or did he not plagiarize? If yes, the only proper response was to posthumously take away his degree. But of course it is not true that “all (I) can think of when (I) ponder MLK is that as a young doctoral student he engaged in plagiarism.” (By the way, if you seriously think that my remark “about repeating the past if unaware” constitutes plagiarism, I don’t think you understand this concept.) No, no, when I consider the career of this man I see more, much more to complain about than a mere spot of plagiarism. I also see a socialist, a unionist, a supporter of welfare, who was leading his people down a very deleterious path in all three of these regards. On the other hand, there are salutary aspects about his career as well. I am very grateful to him for his opposition to the U.S. imperialist war in Viet Nam, and, as you say, he did do good work regarding the unjustified hanging of innocent black people. I congratulate you for the skill you show in once again changing the subject. Here we are, discussing whether King was a plagiarist, and your response it to attack the “free market capitalist who care only for the bottom line and themselves often practice corruption and deceit whilst falsely advertising their products and doing no benefit to anyone but stockholders.” I hope and trust that in your excusing and whitewashing of MLK’s plagiarism, you yourself, Four Arrows, do not engage in this practice because of “pressure” you yourself are experiencing. I would hate to be a co author with a person guilty of this, one of the greatest scholarly transgressions possible. But, I am sure this is not the case. BRITISH PETROLEUM

You refer to “typical free market machinations.” This is troublesome to me in the context of “corporate-government cronyism.” Why cannot I convince you that there are two very different systems that are conflated by all and sundry? On the one 202

A CASE STUDY

hand, there is laissez faire capitalism, where governments, and their subsidies, regulations, are non existent. On the other hand there is state corporate monopoly capitalism, or fascism, or mercantilism, where the grubby hands of government are ubiquitous. There are not, there cannot be any, “machinations” in the former. The latter is replete with them. I fear we will not fully communicate until and unless you let go of the idea that the former really doesn’t exist, even as a theoretical construct, since there are no perfect illustrations of this that I can point to. Let me take another hack at you on this. In chemistry, there is the concept of the perfect gas; a counterpart, in physics, would be the frictionless system. Neither one has ever existed in pure form, except in the imaginations of these scientists. In mathematics, there is the line, with breadth and no width; there is also the point, which lacks both. Yet, no one is so rash as to reject mathematics, entirely, because of this. No sensible person would rebut the Pythagorean Theorem, on the basis of the claim that it relies on a perfect triangle, which does not and cannot appear in nature. But this is precisely what you are guilty of, Four Arrows, in your curt dismissal of free enterprise. Yes, yes, the full free market of laissez faire capitalism has not, either, existed in any perfect state. And, certainly, there can be no such thing as full macro equilibrium, an insight emanating from Austrian economics, to which I adhere. Nevertheless, these systems, perfect gas, the frictionless assumption, the line, the point, the Pythagorean Theorem, and pure free markets, are of inestimable help in understanding and improving the real world. If I can pound away at you on this one issue, and achieve real understanding about it, I can feel we have made some progress in explaining my viewpoint to you. So far, sadly, there has been no positive movement on your part in comprehending what I saying here. Does this mean that the system I advocate is impervious to all sorts of criticisms? No, of course it does not; it means no such thing. Within the realm of professional economics, there is a wide ranging debate over precisely this system (even though, as you never tire of reminding me, it has never existed in the real world in perfect form). I refer to the vast “market failure” literature, which lists monopoly, externalities, public goods, asymmetric information as four of the main components. We have never arrived at a direct discussion of any of these in this book because we are still stuck on your insistence that we cannot even seriously discuss this free enterprise model, since no real manifestations of it can be seen. Let us now try to apply this to BP. You say this Four Arrows: “Your distinction between corporate capitalism and laissez faire capitalism is meaningless if you are using it to defend BP.” So is this company to be counted upon in the former or the latter category? It all depends upon what its officers did, not upon the mere size of this company (although to be sure, there is a strong positive correlation between size and whether a firm is part of the ruling class or not). Unhappily, at the time of this writing, the oil spill is too recent; the facts have not yet emerged. In their absence, we must resort to hypotheticals. You mention “use of money to corrupt government officials.” Does that imply guilt? This all depends upon whether the bribe was offensive or defensive. For example, if corporation A bribes a bureaucrat into making life miserable for its competitor, firm B, that is an offensive act, and A is culpable; it is a monopolist company. On the other hand, if firm B counter-bribes 203

CHAPTER 5

the politician into leaving it alone, it is innocent of this charge. Take another example. Firm C buys a plot of land the size of one acre, intending to build a high rise on it of 50 stories. Along comes the city planning commission and prohibits the erection of such a building, whereupon C pays off these central planners. Here, C is part of the system of laissez faire capitalism, because the bureaucrats had no right to impose any height restrictions on it in the first place. What about actual the BP case? If this company paid off the government to cap its damages, then it would be illicit; but, on the other hand, if BP had nothing to do with promulgating this unjust government intervention, and was only an innocent beneficiary, why, then, it is not guilty of these charges. And if the reason BP set up its installation so far from shore, and in such deep water, was because of government intervention, then, again, it was an innocent victim. On the other hand, if, as you say, “oil companies are drilling in deep water, … because there is no more easy oil available,” why then BP is guilty (from the ex post perspective) of making a blunder, and deserves to possibly go bankrupt, if it cannot pay off all its legitimate creditors. You say to me, Four Arrows, “You can’t have it both ways Walter.” This bespeaks a serious misunderstanding of our attempt to count BP as acting in accord with laissez faire versus crony capitalism. Both could be true. That is, some of its actions might be described in one way, and others not. To wit, there is of course the possibility that BP acted like a crony capitalist company vis a vis deep water location, and as a truly free market firm regarding the cap. Or, vice versa. How, then, ought this business be considered? Why, as guilty in one instance, and innocent in another. Your problem, here, Four Arrows, is that you are operating with a bludgeon, when a scalpel is needed. By the way, I am entirely open to your conspiracy theory about 9/11. I am not sure of where I stand on it. Your explanation seems plausible. But, I will wait for more evidence to come to light before I make up my mind on this. Certainly, I would not reject your hypothesis just because the government labels it a conspiracy theory. As to Rush Limbaugh, why is it per se illicit to cite him, in a pertinent way? He is a conservative, not a libertarian, so there is much that he says and writes with which I disagree. But, there is also some overlap between him and me. I see politics as a sort of three legged stool: there is a right wing or conservative leg occupied by the likes of Rush, a left wing or liberal socialist leg that you and Obama represent, and then there is a third leg to which I subscribe, where Ron Paul is perhaps the most well known example (I disagree with Congressman Paul on abortion and immigration). If it is acceptable for me to positively cite leftists such as Gabriel Kolko, why not Rush Limbaugh on the right? HOMOSEXUALS

I am not all that interested in discussing violence against homosexuals. I oppose it, and favour any program that will alleviate it, including “queer studies,” if and when I see some evidence that this “discipline” actually has this result. I still wouldn’t include courses in it at any university I was in charge of, because it simply isn’t scholarly enough (if witchcraft or voodoo would reduce violence against gays, 204

A CASE STUDY

I would support them, but not as a university course of study). I have no doubt “that there is a connection between homophobia and violence against homosexuals.” But, again, this is a different issue. The question, here, is whether “queer studies” can alleviate either or both of these. I do, however, want to discuss homosexuality with you in a different context, the one I raised above, but to which you have still not responded. My attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is that if you are really against discrimination, if you think that black people have a right to attend lunch counters where they are not welcome, you will join me in my call for compulsory bisexuality. Both homos and heteros, as I say above, are guilty of excluding one half of the human races as bed partners, lovers, etc. How dare they do so? I doubt that you will go along with me on this, Four Arrows, and if not, I would dearly appreciate being told why you refrain. I ask you to point out my error here. Four Arrows: Walter, I truly remain impressed with your very conscientious efforts to understand my concerns and to explain your own. I know you believe what you say and I truly feel sorry that I cannot understand nor agree with your reasoning. In fact, I do feel almost the same as when I try to understand the logic of my equally brilliant cousin, an M.D. who is a Christian fundamentalist. Of course, it is obvious that you, like my wonderful cousin, are equally unable to accept my reasoning. Nonetheless, all three of us strive to a non-violent world and perhaps the diversity of our thoughts in concert with our willingness to dialogue will help us get there. Now, I had hoped your previous contribution would be he last word in this chapter, but the sincerity of your further questions forces me to respond one last time. Please, in your next and final submission, do not query me nor ask for clarifications. I think we are now beating a dead horse and I do not want our readers to think there is no more to learn from our positions. “FREE MARKET ” SCARE QUOTES

Walter, this is my last attempt to explain why your defence of that which has never existed and does not now exist is problematic. The many things you oppose, such as unionism, welfare, environmental regulations, ethnic studies, etc., are all manifestations that attempt to neutralize the negative and unfair impacts of capitalism in the real world. If these concepts existed to challenge your pure ideals, then I could see you standing against them, but they don’t. They stand against the violence that has occurred throughout history to workers, children, eco-systems by a system that you yourself condemn as corrupt. These institutions, unionism, welfare, environmental regulations, ethnic studies, are an attempt to bring about and fair shares of wealth produced by all, not just a privileged few. So how can you all (I include the many who support your arguments) continue to stand against the people who seem to be fighting the same problems you “wish” did not exist? Your references concerning “pure oxygen” have absolutely no bearing on this issue. I have no problems with you talking about an ideal theory if you could do so without attacking individuals who are not only talking about true problems, but actually solving them. On the 205

CHAPTER 5

other hand, maybe your attempted oxygen analogy does have application here. If people truly tried to breathe only pure oxygen, I’m sure it would also cause many problems. If they did, would you attack the groups that campaign for people to breathe only 20 percent oxygen, the normal amount in our air? It is just not possible to argue with you in this arena. Your arguments about B.P. both acting in accord with laissez faire versus crony capitalism, is another example of the “having it both ways” that is commonly observed by your critics. Look, the problem that relates to your position in light of support for a non-existent phenomenon is recognized by many besides me. I’ve pointed this out to you before. For now, I’m just pasting the first of many pages of a Google search to give you an idea of how common my own concern is, especially as relates to social justice. Why A Free Market Cannot Guarantee Civil Rights « Amicus Dei 22 May 2010 ... The problem with their argument is that libertarians treat ... Posted by Civil Rights and a Free Market | Support Civil Rights .... 1) The free-market has not failed to eleminate prejudice, because it has never existed. ... amicusdei. wordpress.com/.../why-a-free-market-cannot-guarantee-civil-rights/ - Cached When Libertarians Forget History | United Liberty | Free Market ... 7 Apr 2010 ... Of course not, but it does mean that we need to recognize that the idyllic American past never really existed and that the fight for liberty ... www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5497-when-libertarians-forget-history - Cached Critiques of Libertarianism? - My Posting Career 20 posts - 9 authors - Last post: 20 May Yes, Libertarians believe the free market can even bring social ... the free market – a theoretical construct that has never existed in ... www.myposting career.com/forums/index.php?/topic/282...libertarianism/ Up from Slavery - Reason Magazine 6 Apr 2010 ... Sure, Boaz is correct that the U.S. was never a libertarian paradise ...... Also in an ideal free market world there would be no such thing as a ...... No one actually thinks that the days when slavery existed where ones ... reason.com/archives/2010/04/06/up-from-slavery - Cached Rand Paul is No Barry Goldwater on Civil Rights | Capital Gains ... 20 May 2010 ... This philosophy that the free market will sort everything out is and always has ..... So the libertarian market had a chance to work. And guess what? .... If Jim Crow laws had never existed, even in the face of cultural ... www.capitalgainsandgames.com/.../rand-paul-no-barry-goldwatercivil-rights - Cached Right-wing politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The term is also used to describe those who support free market capitalism, .... that the historical tradition to which right wingers refer never existed. ... or

206

A CASE STUDY

conservative libertarianism, “can refer to any number of varying and at ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics - Cached - Similar Urban Dictionary: Libertarian In their effort to appear intelligent, libertarians argue that in a free market (which has never existed) everything is fair. Not so. ... www.urbandictionary. com/define.php?term=Libertarian&page=6 - Cached Libertarianism, Kiwi-Style - The Free Radical Online ... nor has it ever been, anything remotely approaching a free market. ... In fact, so far as I know, libertarian thought barely existed in the country ... www.freeradical.co.nz/content/44/sturm.php - Cached - Similar Noam Chomsky, Libertarians, Intentional Communities, and the Venus ... 11 Jun 2010 ... Unsubsidized capitalism has never existed in any developed society for ... Some libertarians even advocate a stateless, free market society, ... You ask me, “What is the alternative to this system of cooperation through free market competition?” I have answered before, in detail, that the gift culture based on generosity and recognition of interconnectedness is the answer. Such cultures existed for thousands of years I have said and say again. Your Rockwell quote ends by saying that “in every society, there are greed and fraud” but a true study of the history of our Indigenous cultures show that they managed to minimize these two vices to such a degree that it is unimaginable to those in contemporary Western society. You say I am out of touch with reality, but the reality is that greed rules today under systems that move toward your kind of economics and away from mine. Nor did such cultures turn away visitors. I do not evade your points about free association. Rather, I am saying that in a system where stores are created for selling goods anyone who is not violent should have access. You make a “free association” argument out of racism and I do not buy it. Period. You might be partially correct about the members of the southern ruling class passing laws to help assure that racist store owners would not lose out, but your argument is not strong in the light of the history of racism in the south. Speaking of racism, you say that “if it be racist to claim that Western civilization has by far made the greatest strides in human development, then count me as a racist.” I don’t know if such arrogance always manifests itself as racism Walter. My allegation is far worse than being only about racism. You also claim that only males have been responsible for human progress. Furthermore, you believe that only humans have inherent value. I don’t know if all this brands you as a racist, but it seems to give you the same intellectual rationalizations that were undoubtedly used by the Germans responsible for atrocities against your Jewish cousins. There might be a dose of racism in not recognizing fully the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., however. As for the events of 9/11, I conclude my part of this book by asking you sincerely to take the time to do some research in three arenas. First, look at the website for 207

CHAPTER 5

“Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth.” (I will not refer you to “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” because of your denigration of academic scholars (like us). Look at the peer reviewed articles. Also Google, “Boston University David Griffin” and listen to his carefully crafted lectures on how the official story is impossible. Following this, Google “Women who have contributed to world history.” Do the same for “American Indian contributions to science.” While doing so, try to keep in mind that white men have written the history books about the contributions you are so aware of. Finally, I’ll try my best to understand your confusion about my thoughts on competition. I am a very competitive guy in sports, but since I have matured even this has not been about winning. Instead, I see competition as an opportunity to develop my skills. Surely you have heard the Olympic credo, “It is not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.” In life, one must do one’s best to survive, but when survival of the group and respect for the other are paramount in one’s philosophy, competition as a way to wind up on top or to eliminate others is not an option. When Indian football teams were organized at Carlyle, the first Indian college, white coaches were amazed at how hard the Indians (like Jim Thorpe) played and yet when they played against one another, the teams always tied. Eventually they learned this happened intentionally and of course were very upset about it. We know that ultimately life is a cooperative, symbiotic, interconnected phenomenon. The “dog eat dog” world that has emerged in Western civilization with all its “human developments” that you acclaim, has forgotten this and we are all paying the price. Walter: I, too, sense a kinship between you and me and your cousin. I think we are all three of us “good guys” in the sense that we would never knowingly support the initiation of violence against innocent people, the libertarian axiom. (By the way, libertarians do not seek a “non violent world.” Boxing, karate, judo, ice hockey are all violent endeavors; but as long as all those who participate in them do so voluntarily, the libertarian has no principled quarrel with any of them). But, I can’t for the life of me understand why you don’t see that the minimum wage law constitutes initiatory violence against innocent people. After all, it threatens to incarcerate the two of us (but especially you), if we both voluntarily agree that I should wash your car for the princely fee of $2 per hour. Yes, $2 per hour isn’t much, but, if I agree to the deal, it must mean that at least in my own eyes I am better off for taking on this job than turning it down. And yet government (initiatory) violence precludes me from so doing under the aegis of such legislation. “FREE MARKET” SCARE QUOTES

It has taken me a few iterations to get this, but, finally, I think, I see your point. If I may put words in your mouth on this point, it would be these: “Lookit, Walter, you wax eloquent about how bad corporations are really part of corporate state monopoly capitalism, and that you don’t favor this system. Rather, you support, laissez faire capitalism, something very, very different, where the firms are innocuous; e.g., don’t exploit workers, customers, the environment, etc. Well your position would be a lot more believable if you didn’t also oppose unionism, welfare, 208

A CASE STUDY

environmental regulations, ethnic studies, etc., and other institutions which attempt to ‘neutralize the negative and unfair impacts of capitalism in the real world.’ Until and unless you come out an attack these supposedly ‘bad’ companies, in your lexicon, I have to take everything you say with not a grain of salt, but with a big bucket of it.” Four Arrows, assuming that this statement I am now “putting in your mouth” is consonant with your beliefs on this matter, I have two responses. First, I do too condemn these fascist firms. Indeed, this is precisely what I was trying to do when I positively quoted scholars such as Kolko (1963) and Domhoff (1971, 1998). I have often condemned corporate welfare, and now take this opportunity of doing so yet again. In this very chapter I denounced BP if it was instrumental in socializing its risk via that cap of $75 million. My discussion of reparations for slavery is another case in point. As a libertarian, I am not at all behind hand in criticizing ruling class corporations. This is a point made eloquently by Hoppe (1990), and I support his analysis of this phenomenon without reservation. Second, the institutions you name do not focus on the bad type of corporation. Instead, unionism further promotes initiatory violence against innocents (scabs). Welfare destroys the black family; I don’t at all see how that gets back at illegitimate firms. I do support some environmental regulations, the ones that defend private property rights against manufacturing plants, steel mills and railroads that trespass dust particles onto other people’s persons and property, a point I took great pains to make in our chapter on this subject (e.g., that little old lady and that farmer in the first part of the 19th century). As for ethnic studies, when they are not busy promoting multiculturalism (all cultures are equally meritorious), they adopt the Marxist position and condemn all companies, holus bolus. Four Arrows, you say “It is just not possible to argue with you in this arena.” I hate to agree with you on this, but I fear I must. I have no doubt you would reject my just now made attempt at a reconciliation. I am sure you share my regret. But why, after so many pages, can we not get any closer to each other on this matter? Perhaps Sowell (2007), a brilliant economist, has put his finger on this: we have very different “visions” of how the world functions. I am not happy about this, and I’m sure you share my disquiet. But perhaps it is better to at least understand why we cannot make common cause on these issues than to have no idea of why this is the case. I thank you for your list of readings, indicating “how common (your) own concern is.” Perhaps others, representing both of our positions, will take up the cudgels on these matters, based on that very helpful bibliography you have provided. RACISM

In my view, free association is absolutely integral to the good society. If people are forced to associate with each other against their will, they are to that extent slaves. This goes for the employer compelled to associate with union members when he wants to hire alternative workers. It applies to outright slaves who do not wish to associate with their masters or their overseers. And, also, it encompasses the owners of “stores … created for selling goods.” Such people have rights, too. 209

CHAPTER 5

They should not be forced at the point of a statist gun to give access to their property to “anyone who is not violent.” Rights are rights are rights. If non violent people have access rights to the stores owned by these people, they should also, and for the same reason (the supposed right not to be discriminated against), have access to these people’s private abodes. I think this is preposterous, as “a man’s home is his castle.” But, so should his store be his “castle,” and equally so. In this perspective, “anyone who is not violent” should also have the right not to be discriminated against in terms of dating, marriage, sexual relations. I don’t blame you for avoiding (“I do not buy it. Period.”) my reductio ad absurdum about compulsory bisexuality. No one else from your side has even so much as tackled this, let alone answered it, either. I don’t see why it is “arrogant” to “claim that Western civilization has by far made the greatest strides in human development.” It is difficult to see, after that partial listing of mostly dead white males, how this could be false. Surely, merely telling the truth cannot be considered “arrogant.” I do not at all “claim that only males have been responsible for human progress,” as you have charged. Rather, I maintain that this is preponderantly the case. Certainly, Marie Curie, Jane Jacobs, Joan of Arc, Maria Montessori, Mother Theresa, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Thatcher (for her domestic policies only) and Ayn Rand have made contributions that put those of most males entirely in the shade. But all women compared to all men? No contest. I confess I am at a complete loss to understand how anyone could equate Nazism with the belief “that only humans have inherent value.” If there is anything that Hitler rejected, it was the view that “humans have inherent value.” I note that you now refer to that world-famous plagiarist as “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” Evidently, you think he deserves his doctorate degree, which is supposed to be awarded for conducting original research. This seems to me to be a case of political correctness run amuck. I do indeed recognize Mr. King’s contributions, some good, some bad. But I cannot see my way clear to understanding why on earth he deserves the honorific “Dr.” COMPETITION

I think you are mistaken as to the amount of competition that occurred amongst Indigenous peoples. Since they were humans, with wants greater than resources, there was necessarily scarcity. Given that, there had to be some sort of competition. If everyone, together, wants more than there is, there must necessarily be a method of determining who gets what. That process is called “competition.” You can’t tell me, for example, that there was no competition, then, for the fastest horses, the best skins, the prettiest women. You say that “generosity and recognition of interconnectedness is the answer.” My only response must be one of extreme doubt. Either that, or your forebears simply were not human, a silly alternative. If “indigenous cultures managed to minimize these two vices to such a degree that it is unimaginable to those in contemporary Western society,” then there would be no way at all for them to determine who got the best cuts of meat, the best wives, etc. 210

A CASE STUDY

Regarding athleticism, I’ll just bet that you are “a very competitive guy in sports.” No one gets to be an alternative to a U.S. Olympic team without a very strong drive of this sort, among other characteristics such as talent and an excellent work ethic. You say you “have matured” and are no longer that concerned “about winning.” Nonsense, nonsense on stilts, say I. My evidence? It consists of your contribution to this very book. You have been highly competitive with me in this regard. You haven’t let me get away with a single iota of anything you thought was fallacious on my part. If your contribution to this volume hasn’t been competitive, and I mean this in the finest sense of that word, then nothing is. If you haven’t wanted to “wind up on top” with your arguments vis a vis mine (exactly the way I have looked upon our competition), you would scarcely have written as you have. Although I have tried my best, I have not succeeded in demonstrating to you that only corporate monopoly capitalism, not laissez faire capitalism, deserves to be characterized as “dog eat dog.” Yes, “we are all paying the price” for the former, but not for the latter. “Dog eat dog” implies a fixed pie that must be divided up. But the free market economy constitutes a win- win situation; all parties who take part in it mutually benefit. NOTES 1

I thank Samuel Bostaph, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Kathryn Muratore, Jeremie Rostan, Shane Cunningham, Koen Swinkels and Chris Westley for helping me compile this list.

211

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION Disagreement, Non-violence and Friendship

Four Arrows: Walter, I cannot say it has been wholly a pleasure to have written this book with you. I had hoped for more in depth mind-changing on both our parts. On the other hand, I have never co-authored a book with someone as dedicated to excellence on so many levels. I have appreciated your frankness, your integrity, and your humor, as well as your superb writing and editing skills, especially the editing of my sentences and paragraphs. I don’t think I disagreed once, which is unusual for me when working even with professional editors. In spite of the failure to bring one another to “the other side,” I hope that our various arguments will give the reading public, students and colleagues alike, enough contrasting ideas and arguments to come to better informed decisions than might have been made otherwise. Perhaps they will come to understand what you and I have not grasped about one another’s positions as a result of our dialogue. If so, I hope future decisions on our planet will reflect the greatest “truths” from our logic and perspectives, on whichever side they might rest. Even if our readers are as unable to change original beliefs as we have proven to be, I think that the model we have set forth in this text for dialogue is a vital one for our times. For two such profoundly different views of the world to have brought us, not to blows and profanity but to respect and friendship is in itself something of value. Perhaps when we are arguing in person or on radio or television, this magic will be undone and we will become like all the other oppositional voices of hate that seem to be stifling authentic conversations, but I don’t think so. My competitive nature, as I said, has little to do with beating you down, outscoring you or feeling superior to you. It is about digging down deep to do the best I can, in this case, to defend that which I think is true and explain it in the best way I can, while remaining open to learning and changing my own mind. Ultimately, my competitive energy is about what you and I can do together to make the world a better place. I think that you also have this goal. Thanks. In closing I want to say that I have a feeling that some other scholar, not so close to either of our worldviews, might some day read what we have written and then write something like the following: Professors Walter Block and Four Arrows, I think concluded their book thinking that neither truly came to understand the other’s rationales nor moved closer to the other’s positions. However, if one stands back and realizes that both are fighting fiercely for a way of living in the world that does not exist and has not for the most part for some time, it might be that the issues over which they disagree would be non-existent in such worlds. For example, 213

CHAPTER 6

Dr. Block would not have to oppose unions striving for a fair distribution of income because there would be no need for organized labor in either of their idealistic worlds. Of course, this scholar would then have to say finally, “Of course, if the Western capitalistic and consumer orientation of the world, with its free market claims, come closer to Dr. Block’s beliefs than they do to Four Arrows, and if Four Arrows approach to being in the word was truly practiced successful for thousand of years, it may be that Traditional Indigenous Knowledge may indeed be a more vital contributor to the world’s survival than libertarianism. (Walter, this is not a competitive statement but one that any reasonable scholar would naturally make after reading this book, eh eh.) Walter: Four Arrows, I really appreciate your contribution to this concluding chapter. It took a lot of courage and honesty on your part to write it. I will try to respond in kind, now, in my closing. Several times, while I was writing my contribution to this book, I thought to myself, “Aha, Four Arrows, this time I’ve got you. You cannot possibly stick to your interventionistic point of view. You must convert to libertarianism, at least on this one point.” I confess that this never did come to pass. Instead, you stuck to you principles, through thick and thin. I was of two minds on this. On the one hand, I did indeed want to convert you to the one true philosophy of political economy. Having you as a spokesman for liberty would have been a wonderful break through. On the other hand, it would have played havoc with this book; all the tension would have gone out of it, like a leaky balloon. On the third hand, I am appalled with my own performance in this regard. Here I had a “captive” audience of one, namely, you, who was compelled (by our agreement to edit each other’s material) to carefully read everything I wrote in this book. I full well know you did exactly that, since you gave me very good editorial advice all throughout this process. And yet, at the end of it, you still have not converted to the one true faith. As a result, I am torn between saying to myself, “Well, you can’t win them all,” and thinking that I really should hand in my libertarian card or credentials or whatever it is that establishes me as a libertarian theoretician and a free market economist. Clearly, I was an abject failure in this case. Well, hopefully, some of our readers will make good my failure to convince you that the non aggression and property rights pillars of libertarianism constitute the only possible just society. But, I must concede, many others of our readers will use your eloquent and incisive contributions to this book to amplify upon and promote your vision of the good society. (Speaking of incisiveness, I now offer you an apology of sorts. I fear that I have written more than my proper 50% share of this book. My only excuse is that sometimes, often, one side of our disagreement takes far more verbiage to articulate than the other. For example, take the minimum wage law. In your opening statement on this topic, you merely called for an increase in its level; it took me hundreds of words to try to demonstrate why I think this is not a good idea.) One of the reasons I accepted your kind offer to co author this book with you was that I thought you and I together could thereby add to the literature of cooperation 214

CONCLUSION

between libertarians and leftists (Radosh and Rothbard, 1972; Polnar and Woods, 2008). I don’t delude myself into thinking that we have fully succeeded in this regard. Why not? Mainly, I think, because we didn’t stick to issues on which we both agreed, such as the foreign policy, anti imperialistic wars addressed by these two other sets of authors. You and I made an explicit decision not to include these topics in the present book on the ground that our agreement on them would make for less interesting reading than the issues we did include, where we were not in accord, to say the least (we do concur on open borders and drug legalization, but as is our wont, spent little time on these topics). So, in one sense, we did not achieve the agreement that your (Radosh and Polnar) and my (Rothbard and Woods) philosophical predecessors did. But, in another, ours was by far the riskier endeavour. We confronted each other on issues where there is sharp disagreement between our two very different philosophies. Neither of us pulled any punches on matters of substance. However, I think that while there may have been a few momentary lapses on both our parts in this regard, we did so with not only civility and respect, but as friends. So, I can say that it was a pleasure working with you on this project; I look forward to actually meeting you one of these days, and, if this book warrants it, joining with you on radio, television and other public stages for discussions of topics raised in this book.

215

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AN INTELLECTUAL ADVENTURE Bickmore, K. (2008). Social justice and the social studies. In L. Levstick & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education. New York: Routledge. Block, W. (1976). Defending the undefendable. New York: Fleet Press. Borel, M.-J. (1989). Norms in argumentation and natural logic. In R. Maier (Ed.), Norms in argumentation. Proceedings of the conference on norms 1988 (Vol. 8, pp. 33–48). Dordrecht: Foris, PDA. Coleman, J. (1989). Rationality and the justification of democracy. In G. Brennan & L. E. Lomansky (Eds.), Politics and process (p. 197). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Environmental Protection Association. (n.d.). http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/faqs/ej/index. html#faq1 Harkavy, I., & Huber, J. (2007). Higher education and democratic culture: Citizenship, human rights and civic responsibility. Council of Europe Publishing. Hayek, F. A. (1978). New studies in philosophy, politics and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Free Press. Kymlicka, W. (2003). Two dilemmas of citizenship education in pluralist societies. In A. Lockyer, B. Crick, & J. Annette (Eds.), Education for democratic citizenry: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 47–63). Aldershot, Hants, UK: Ashgate. Leff, M. (1999). Rhetorical prolepsis and the dialectical tier of argumentation. In Proceedings of the international society for the study of argumentation conference, 1998 (pp. 510–513). Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Makau, J. M., & Marty, D. L. (2001). Cooperative argumentation: A model for deliberative community. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Merriam –Webster Dictionary. Accessed at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence Novak, M. (n.d.). http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/defining-social-justice-29 Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Parker, W. (2001). Teaching with and for discussion. In Teaching and teacher education (Vol. 17, pp. 273–289). Silver, H. (2007). Higher education and social change: Purpose in pursuit? Journal of the History of Education, 36(4), 535–550, 1464–5130. Silverstein, L. (1971, May). The nature of violence: A teaching guide. The history teacher, 4(4), 66–68. Simon, I. (2001). Moral questions in the classroom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Van Eemeren, F. H. A. (1995, Spring). World of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. In Informal logic (Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 144–158). Violence Prevention Alliance. http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/print.html Witt, J., Epstein, K., Henderson, L., & Four Arrows. (2011). Counter-Friction: Social and ecological justice praxis in higher education. Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

CHAPTER 2: ACADEMIC FREEDOM The American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1915, 1940, December 31). AAUP’s 1915 declaration of principles. http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/566 Altschuler, E. L. (1998). Searching for Shakespeare in the stars. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/ 9810/9810042v1.pdf Autostraddle. (2010). http://www.autostraddle.com/feminist-theologian-mary-daly-dies-at-81-27331/ Bass, K. J. (1995). http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/95_07/bass.html Block, W. (2008) [1976]. Defending the undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. 217

REFERENCES Blog from the Core. (2004). http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_11/ind_004352.html Clouser, R. A. (1991). The myth of religious neutrality: An essay on the hidden role or religious belief. In Belief in theories (pp. 26–27). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Conservapedia. (2010, January 20). Liberal bias in academia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_ bias_in_academia Duke University Libraries. (n.d.). http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/exhibits/academic-freedom/mccarthyhart.html Ehringer, D. (1974). Influence, belief and argument; An introduction to responsible persuasion. Glenview, CA: Scott, Foreman & Co. Gilbert, K. (2010). Canadian Professors’ Union Blacklists Christian University over “Academic Freedom” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020308.html Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy, the god that failed: The economics and politics of monarchy, democracy and natural order. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Horowitz, D. (2003, September 09). One last, Leftist lecture: Study of bias in the selection of commencement speakers at 32 Elite Colleges and Universities. FrontPageMagazine.com. A report of the center for the study of popular culture. http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16464 Horowitz, D. (2007). Indoctrination U: The left’s war against academic freedom. New York: Encounter Books. Jacobs, D. T. (1994). The bum’s rush: The selling of environmental backlash. Boise: Legendary Press. Karni, A. (2007, November 7). Universities’ growing liberal bias is documented. The New York Sun. http://www.nysun.com/new-york/universities-growing-liberal-bias-is-documented/66418/ Kennedy, P. (2005, October 28). Leaning left: Why is there liberal bias in academia? The Johns HopkinsNewsletter, http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2005/10/28/Opinions/ Leaning.Left.Why.Is.There.Liberal.Bias.In.Academia-2242888.shtml Levin, M. (1997). Why race matters: Race differences and what they mean. New York: Praeger. McMaken, R. (2005, October 28). Chile: Socialism, dictatorship, and liberalism. http://mises.org/daily/ 1719 Mill, J. S. (1947 [1859]). On liberty. Northbrook, IL: Ahm Publishing. Miron, J. (2006, August 4). The liberal ‘Bias’ in academia. http://jeffreyalanmiron.typepad.com/jeffrey_ alan_miron/2006/08/a_liberal_bias_.html N. C., S. S. M., & P. W. (2005, April 5). Wash. Times, opinion pieces peddled flawed survey on liberal professors. Media Matters for America. http://mediamatters.org/research/200504050002 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books. Rothbard, M. N. (1973). For a new liberty. New York: Macmillan. Rothbard, M. N. ([1982]1998). The ethics of liberty. New York: New York University Press. http:// www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp Rothman, S., & Lichter, R. S. (2009). The vanishing conservative - is there a glass ceiling? In M. Robert, et al. (Eds.), The politically correct university. Washington, DC: AEI Press. Rothman, S., Nevitte N., & Lichter, R. S. (2005, March). Politics and professional advancement. Academic Questions, 18(2), 71–84. Simon, W. E. (1996, June). PC has a price. Academic Questions, 9(2), http://www.springerlink.com/ content/v872708g45483747/ Spartacus. (2004, January 8). Measuring liberal bias in academia. http://spartacus.blogs.com/spartacus/ 2004/01/measuring_liber.html Spartacus. (2005, May 5). More on political bias in academia. http://spartacus.blogs.com/spartacus/2005/ 05/more_on_academi.html Stephens, B. (2010, March 1). How Milton Friedman saved Chile. Wall Street Journal, http://online. wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748703411304575093572032665414-lMyQjAxMTAwMDA wMjEwNDIyWj.html University of California. (n.d.). Mission statement: The University’s fundamental missions are teaching, research and public service. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/aboutuc/mission.html Webster’s New World College Dictionary. (n.d.). http://www.yourdictionary.com/academic-freedom 218

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 3: ECOLOGICAL JUSTICE American University. (n.d.). The buffalo harvest. http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/buffalo.htm Anderson, T. L. (1983). Water crisis: Ending the policy drought. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Anderson, T. L., & Pamela S. S. (1997). Water markets: Priming the invisible pump. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Anderson, W. L., & Barnett, A. (1999). Waiting for transplants. The free market, 17(4). http://mises. org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=29 Anderson, W., & Kjar, S. A. (2008). Hurricane Katrina and the levees: Taxation, calculation, and the matrix of capital. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 569–578. Anderson, W. (2005, September, 13). Katrina and the never-ending scandal of state management. http:// www.mises.org/story/1909 Barnett, W. (1988). The market for used human body parts. The Free Market, 6(2), http://mises.org/daily/ 4231 Bastiat, F. (1964). Economic harmonies. New York: Van Nostrand. Bauer, P. (1981). The population explosion: Myths and realities. In Equality, the third World, and economic delusion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Baum, D. (2008). Trait evolution on a phylogenetic tree: Relatedness, similarity, and the myth of evolutionary advancement. Nature Education, 1(1). http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/TraitEvolution-on-a-Phylogenetic-Tree-Relatedness-41936 Begley, K. (2002). And you thought Scrooge was a fiction: The tale of Nestlé and a nation in famine. http://www.counterpunch.org/begley1224.html Block, W., & Llewellyn, H. R., Jr. (2007). Katrina and the future of New Orleans. Telos, 139(Summer), 170–185. http://tinyurl.com/2wv8lc; http://journal.telospress.com: http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/ reprint/2007/139/170 Block, W., & Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (2007). Katrina and the future of New Orleans. Telos, 139(Summer), 170–185. http://tinyurl.com/2wv8lc; http://journal.telospress.com; http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/ reprint/2007/139/170 Block, W. (1992). Institutions, property rights and externalities: The case of water quality. M. H. Miller, J. E. FitzGibbon, G. C. Fox, R. W. Gillham, & H. R. Whiteley (Eds.), Agriculture and water quality: Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium (pp. 191–208). Guelph Centre for Soil and Water Conservation, University of Guelph Press. Block, W. (1999, Fall). Market inalienability once again: Reply to Radin. Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, 22(1), 37–88. http://www.walterblock.com/publications/market_inalienability.pdf Block, W. (2001A, August 4). Drowning in Manitoba, water privatization in Walkerton, Ontario. http:// www.lewrockwell.com/block/block4.html Block, W. (2001B, July 27). Four firemen perish. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block2.html Block, W. (2006A, December 21). Saving language. http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block69.html Block, W. (2006B, June). Katrina: Private enterprise, the dead hand of the past, and weather socialism; an analysis in economic geography. Ethics, Place and Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography, 9(2), 231–241; reprinted in ‘Post-Katrina: Risk assessment, economic analysis and social implications’ (H. Richardson, P. Gordon, & J. Moore (Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing. Block, W. (2007, August 25). The trouble with democracy: Review of Brian Caplan’s. The Myth of the Rational Voter, http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block84.html; http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/ 2007/08/walter_block_re.html Block, W. (2009, October). Contra Watermelons. Ethics, Place & Environment, 12(3), 305–308. Block, W. (2009). The privatization of roads and highways: Human and economic factors. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf Boettke, P. J. (1991). The Austrian critique and the demise of socialism: The soviet case. In R. M. Ebeling (Ed.), Austrian economics: Perspectives on the past and prospects for the future (Vol. 17, pp. 181–232). Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press. Boettke, P. J. (1993). Why perestroika failed: The politics and economics of socialist transformation. London: Routledge. 219

REFERENCES Breaking News. (2008, March 21). San Francisco mounts campaign to discourage bottled water sales. Nation’s Restaurant News, http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?id=351844 Caplan, B. (2007). The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad olicies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carden Art. (2008). Beliefs, bias, and regime uncertainty after Hurricane Katrina. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(7), 531–545. Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Case law. Michigan citizens for water conservation v. nestle waters of America, Inc, 479 Mich. ----; --NW2d. Chamlee-Wright, E., & D. Rothschild. (2007). Disastrous uncertainty: How Government disaster policy undermines community rebound. Mercatus Center; http://www.mercatus.org/Publications/pubID. 3579/pub_detail.asp; http://www.mercatus.org/repository/docLib/20070111_Disastrous_Uncertainty_ complete.pdf Chamlee-Wright, E. (2008). Signaling effects of commercial and civil society in post-Katrina reconstruction. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 615–626. Cho, R. U. (2006). Some faith groups say bottled water immoral. Chicago Tribune. http://www.polaris institute.org/some_faith_groups_say_bottled_water_immoral Clay, K. (1997). Trade without law: Private order institutions in Mexican California. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations. pp. 202–231. http://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v13y1997i1p202-31. html Cowen, T. (2006, April 19). An economist visits New Orleans: Bienvenido, Nuevo Orleans. http://www. mercatus.org/publications/pubID.2272/pub_detail.asp Dreda, C., & Block, W. (2008). Price gouging in the Katrina aftermath: Free markets at work. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(7), 512–520. D’Amico, D. J. (2008). Who’s to blame for all the heartache? A response to anti-capitalistic mentalities after Katrina. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 590–602. Dirmeyer, J. (2008). The futile fight against (human) nature: A public choice analysis of the US Army Corps of Engineers – special focus on Hurricane Katrina. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 627–638. Dorn, J. (1978, Fall). Markets true and false in Yugoslavia. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 2(3), 243–268. Ebeling, R. M. (1993). Economic calculation under socialism: Ludwig von Mises and his predecessors. In J. Herbener (Ed.), The meaning of Ludwig von Mises (pp. 56–101). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Press. Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Sierra Club – Ballantine. Fausset, R. (2009). Judge says U.S. liable in Katrina: Ruling finds that ‘gross negligence’ by the Army Corps of Engineers led to levee breaks in New Orleans. Los Angeles times. http://articles.latimes.com/ 2009/nov/19/nation/na-katrina-flooding19 Featherstone, C. (2005). The myth of ‘peak oil’. http://mises.org/daily/1717 Foley, D. (1996). Adam’s fallacy: A guide to economic theology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Foss, N. J. (1995). Information and the market economy: A note on a common marxist fallacy. Review of Austrian Economics, 8(2), 127–136. Four Arrows. (2008). Unlearning the language of conquest. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Friedman, D. (1972). Laissez Faire in population: the least bad solution. New York: Population Council. Friedman, D. (1979). Private creation and enforcement of law - a historical case. Journal of Legal Studies, 399–415. Available at davidfriedman.com. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland. html Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The affluent society. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Gordon, D. (1990). Resurrecting marx: The analytical Marxists on freedom, exploitation, and justice. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Gore, A. L. (1992). Earth in the balance: Ecology and the human spirit. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

220

REFERENCES Gwartney, J., Lawson R., & Block W. (1996). Economic freedom of the World, 1975–1995. Vancouver, BC, Canada: The Fraser Institute. Hannesson, R. (2004). The privatization of the Oceans. In D. R. Leal (Ed.), Evolving property rights in marine fisheries (pp. 25–48). Rowman and Littlefield. Hannesson, R. (2006). The privatization of the oceans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hayek, F. A. (1937). Economics and knowledge. Economica, pp. 33–54. http://www.virtualschool.edu/ mon/Economics/HayekEconomicsAndKnowledge.html Hayek, F. A. (1961, April). The non sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect’. Southern Economic Journal, 27. http://mises.org/etexts/HayNonseq.pdf Hayek, F. A. (1935a). Socialist calculation debate: The present State of the debate. In F. Hayek (Ed.), Collectivist economic planning: Critical studies on the possibility of socialism (pp. 201–243). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1935. Hayek, F. A. (1935b). The nature and history of the debate. In F. A. Hayek (Ed.), Collectivist economic planning: Critical studies on the possibility of socialism (pp. 1–40). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1935. Hayek, F. A. (1940). Socialist calculation: The competitive ‘Solution’. Economica, 7(May), 125–149. Hayek, F. A. (1948). Socialist calculation I, II, & III. In Individualism and economic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hayek, F. A. (1967). Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. New York: Simon and Schuster. Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, legislation and liberty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Michael, please put all these Hayek’s in date order; then, it will be easy to see if there are any duplicates. Henheffer, T. (2010, March 29). Protecting against a Big Mac attack. Macleans, p. 31. Hoar, J. (2006, June 1). Katrina report blames levees; Army corps of engineers: ‘We’ve had a catastrophic failure’. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/01/national/main1675244.shtml Hoff, T. J. B. (1981). Economic calculation in a socialist society. Indianapolis, IN: LibertyPress. Holman, V. (1919). Athens Empire Laundry Co., 149 Ga. 345, 100 SE 207. Hoppe, H.-H. (1989). A theory of socialism and capitalism. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hoppe, H.-H. (1991). De-Socialization in a United Germany. Review of Austrian Economics, 5(2), 77–106. Hoppe, H.-H. (1996). Socialism: A property or knowledge problem? Review of Austrian Economics, 9(1), 147–154. Horwitz, M. J. (1977). The transformation of American Law: 1780-1860. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Horwitz, S. (1996). Money, money prices, and the socialist calculation debates. Advances in Austrian Economics, 3, 59–77. Howatt, S. (2008). Kennedy urges Canada not to sell water to America. Integrate This. http://www. canadians.org/integratethis/water/2008/Jan-18.html http://www.bartleby.com/130/ Huebert, J. H., & Block W. (2007A, Winter). Space environmentalism, property rights, and the law. Memphis Law Review, 37(2), 281–309. http://www.jhhuebert.com/articles/SpaceEnvironmentalism.pdf Huebert, J. H., & Block W. (2007B). In defense of advertising in space. Proceedings of the 49th colloquium on the law of outer space: International Institute of Space Law (pp. 479–489). Hunt, S. (2010). Ohio exceptions to clean air act ruled illegal. The Columbus Dispatch. http://www. dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/04/copy/EPAruling.ART_ART_02-04-10_ A1_H8GGBE0.html?sid=101 Jacobs, D. T. (1994). The bum’s rush: The selling of environmental backlash (Phrases and Fallacies of Rush Limbaugh). Boise, ID: Legendary. Kaufman, L. (2010, March 29). Among weathercasters, doubt on warming. New York Times. Kedrosky, P. (2010). Re-litigating the Simon/Ehrlich bet. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/02/relitigating_t.html Keizer, W. (1997). Schumpeter’s Walrasian stand in the socialist calculation debate. In K. Willem, B. Riben, & R. Van Zijp (Eds.), Austrian economics in debate. London: Routledge. Keizer, W. (1987). Two forgotten articles by Ludwig von Mises on the rationality of socialist economic calculation. Review of Austrian Economics, 1, 109–122. 221

REFERENCES Kelly, K. (2008). Are we running out of food? http://mises.org/daily/2958 Kirzner, I. M. (1988). The economic calculation debate: Lessons for Austrians. Review of Austrian Economics, 2, 1–18. Klein, P. G. (1996). Economic calculation and the limits of organization. Review of Austrian Economics, 9(2), 3–28. Kolko, G. (1963). Triumph of conservatism. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Kovarik, B. (2008). Environmental history timeline. Retrieved April 26, 2008, from https://php.radford. edu/~wkovarik/drupal/ Kozinski, A. (2002). Gore wars. Michigan Law Review, pp. 1742–1767. http://notabug.com/kozinski/ gorewars.pdf Lendman, S. (2010, March 9). Hijacking Canada’s public water supply. Pacific Free Press. http://www. pacificfreepress.com/news/1/5784-highjacking-canadas-public-water-supply.html Lavoie, D. (1981 Winter). A critique of the standard account of the socialist calculation debate. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, V(1), 41–88. Lavoie, D. (1985). Rivalry and central planning: The socialist calculation debate reconsidered. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leonard, L. (2009). Battle ends for Michigan citizens for water conservation. See http://www.stop corporateabuse.org/battle-ends-michigan-citizens-water-conservation-v-nestl%C3%A9. Lewin, P. (1998, October). The firm, money and economic calculation. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Lilley, F. (2009). Three myths about trash. http://mises.org/daily/3887 Limbaugh, R. (1993). See I told you so. New York: Atria, Simon & Schuster. Lomborg, B. (2004). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Long, R. T. (1994). The decline and fall of private law in Iceland. /Formulations./ Available at libertarian nation.org.
222

REFERENCES Nestle. (n.d.). Is infant formula a necessary product in developing countries? http://www.babymilk. nestle.com/Developping+World/Breastfeeding/Infant+formula.htm Olson, E. D. (1999). Bottled water pure drink or pure hype? Natural Resources Defense Council. http:// www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/chap1.asp Oppenheimer, F. [1914] (1975). The State. New York: Free Life Editions. Osterfeld, D. (1992). Prosperity versus planning: How government stifles economic growth. New York: Oxford University Press. Pasour, E. C., Jr. (1983, Spring). Land-Use planning: Implications of the economic calculation debate. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 7(1), 127–139. Peden, J. R. (1977). Property rights in Celtic Irish Law. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1(2), 81–95. Available at www.mises.org. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf Perry, M. J. (2010, February 4). Fortune 500 firms in 1959 vs. 2009; 86% are gone. Carpe diem. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/fortune-500-firms-in-1959-vs-2009-86.html Raskin, M., Kjar, S. A., Rahm, R. (2008). What is seen and unseen on the Gulf coast. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(7), 490–500. Rathje, W. L. (1989, December). Rubbish! Atlantic Monthly, 99–109. Read, L. E. (1958, December). I, pencil: My family tree as told to Leonard E. Read. The Freeman, http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html Reisman, G. (1996). Capitalism. Ottawa, IL: Jameson Books. Reyburn, M. (1992, March). California’s water shortage is Government’s fault. The Free Market, 10(3), 4–5. Reynolds, M. O. (1998). The impossibility of socialist economy. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 1.2(Summer), 29–43. Richman, S. L. (1981). War communism to NEP: The road from Serfdom. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, V(1), Winter, 89–98. Richman, S. (1995, July 20). Testimony to the U.S. Senate on The International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act (S. 1029). http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ps720.html Ross, A. (n.d.). 22 Largest bankruptcies in world history. http://www.instantshift.com/2010/02/03/22largest-bankruptcies-in-world-history/ Rostan, J. (2009, October 28). Is America struggling with hunger? http://mises.org/daily/3776 Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (2000, May 1). Rockwell’s anti-environmentalist manifesto: The new socialism. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/anti-enviro.html Rockwell, L. H., Jr., & Block, W. (Forthcoming, 2010). The economics and ethics of Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Rothbard, M. N. (1955, November). The ownership and control of water. In Ideas on liberty (No. 3, pp. 82–87). New York: Foundation for Economic Education (Written anonymously). Rothbard, M. N. (1956A). Who owns water? The Freeman, http://www.mises.org/story/2553 Rothbard, M. N. (1956B, March). Concerning water. Freeman, 61-64. Rothbard, M. N. (1971). Lange, Mises and Praxeology: The retreat from Marxism. Toward Liberty (Vol. II, pp. 307–321). Menlo Park, CA: Institute for Humane Studies. Reprinted in The logic of action one: Method, money, and the Austrian school. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1997, pp. 384–396. Rothbard, M. N. (1976). Ludwig von Mises and economic calculation under socialism. In L. S. Moss (Ed.), The Economics of Ludwig von Mises (pp. 67–77). Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward. Rothbard, M. N. (1982). Law, property rights, and air pollution. Cato Journal, 2(1), Spring. Reprinted in Economics and the environment: A reconciliation (W. Block, Ed.). Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf; http://mises.org/story/2120 Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The ethics of liberty. New York: New York University Press. http://www. mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp Rothbard, M. N. (1985, September). Bankruns and water shortages. In The free market (pp. 3–4). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rothbard, M. N. (1987, Fall). Adam Smith reconsidered. In Austrian economics newsletter (pp. 5–7). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Reprinted in Austrian Economics (Vol. 1) by S. Littlechild. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing Company (1990), pp. 41–44. 223

REFERENCES Rothbard, M. N. (1991). The end of socialism and the calculation debate revisited. The Review of Austrian Economics, 5(2), 51–76. Reprinted in The logic of action one: Method, money, and the Austrian school. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1997, pp. 408–437. Rothbard, M. N. (1995). The celebrated Adam Smith. In Economic thought before Adam Smith: An Austrian perspective on the history of economic thought (Vol. I, pp. 433–474). Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing Company. Rothbard, M. N. (2007). Who owns water? Mises Daily. http://mises.org/daily/2553 Salerno, J. T. (1990). Postscript: Why a socialist economy is ‘Impossible’. In Ludwig von Mises, economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth (pp. 51–71). Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Salerno, J. (1995). A final word: Calculation, knowledge and appraisement. Review of Austrian Economics, 9(1), 141–142. http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_8.pdf Salomon, R. (2009). Notable bankruptcies of 2009: Q3. Stockanalyst. http://www.istockanalyst.com/ article/viewarticlepaged/articleid/3527406/pageid/1 Simmons, R., & Kreuter, U. (1989, Fall). Herd mentality: Banning ivory sales is no way to save the elephant. Policy Review, 46–49. Simon, J., (1990, Fall). The unreported revolution in population in population economics. The Public Interest, 89–100. Simon, J. (1996). The ultimate resource II. Princeton U. Press. Smith, A. (1759 [1790]). The theory of moral sentiments (6th ed.). London: A. Millar. Smith, A. ([1776] 1979). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. Solvason, B., & Runolfsson, T. (1992). Ordered anarchy: Evolution of the decentralized legal order in the Icelandic commonwealth. Icelandic Economic Papers, 17. Sowell, T. Tba. Steele, D. R. (1981). Posing the problem: The impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, V(1), Winter, 7–22. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_1/5_1_2.pdf Steele, D. R. (1992). From Marx to Mises: Post capitalist society and the challenge of economic calculation. La Salle, IL: Open Court. Stringham Edward P., & Snow, N. A. (2008). The broken trailer fallacy: Seeing the unseen effects of government policies in Post-Katrina New Orleans. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(7), 480–489. Sutter, D. (2010). Review of Glennon, Robert. 2009. In Unquenchable: America’s water crisis and what to do about it. Washington, DC: Island Press; The Independent Review, 14(4), Spring; http://www. independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=783 Thompson, T. J. (2006). An ancient stateless civilization: Bronze age India and the state in history. The Independent Review, 10, 365–384. Available at Independent.org. http://www.independent.org/public cations/tir/article.asp?issueID=44&articleID=560 Thornton, M. (1999, September). The Government’s great flood. 17(9). http://www.mises.org/freemarket_ detail.asp?control=8&sortorder=articledate. Tim Hunt, S. Ohio exceptions to clean air act ruled illegal. In The Columbus dispatch Thursday. http:// www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/04/copy/EPAruling.ART_ART_ 02-04-10_A1_H8GGBE0.html?sid=101 Tucker, J. (2008). Rain, rain, go away. http://www.mises.org/story/2899 Veneman, A. M. (2010). The President’s proposal. Department of Agriculture. http://www.whitehouse. gov/omb/rewrite/budget/fy2004/agriculture.html Vuk, V. (2006A). Journalism and underwater basket weaving. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/vuk5. html Vuk, V. (2006B). Socialist man in the big easy. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vuk/socialist-man-no.html; http://www.mises.org/story/2319 Vuk, V. (2008). Taking advantage of disaster: Misrepresentation of housing shortage for political gain. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 603–614.

224

REFERENCES Walker, D. M., & Jackson J. D. (2008). Market-based “disaster relief ”: Katrina and the casino industry. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(7), 521–530. Westley, C., Murphy, R. P., & Anderson, W. L. (2008). Institutions, incentives, and disaster relief: The case of the Federal Emergency Management Agency following Hurricane Katrina. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(7), 501–511. Whitehead, R., & Block, W. (2002, October). Environmental takings of private water rights: the case for full water privatization. Environmental Law Reporter, 11162–11176. Whitehead, R., Gould, C., & Block, W. (2004). The value of private water rights: from a legal and economic perspective. Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal, 9(2), 315–343. http://tinyurl.com/ 36p9he; http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Articles%20for%20web/The%20value%20of%20Private% 20Water%20Rights.doc Williams, W. E. (2010). Conflict or cooperation. http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams27. html Young, A. T. (2008). Replacing incomplete markets with a complete mess: Katrina and the NFIP. The International Journal of Social Economics, 35(8), 561–568.

CHAPTER 4: WEALTH DISTRIBUTION Alston, W. D., & Block, W. (2007, September). Reparations, once again. Human Rights Review, 9(3), 379–392. http://tinyurl.com/2b75fl Anderson, G. M. (1987). Welfare programs in the rent seeking society. Southern Economic Journal, 54, 377–386. Anderson, M. (1978). Welfare: The political economy of welfare reform in the United States. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution. Anderson, W. (1996, September). Kathie Lee’s children. The Free Market, 14(9). http://mises.org/free market_detail.aspx?control=4 Anderson, W. L. (2000, May 28). The dangers of smart growth. The Free Market, 18(2). http://www. mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=434&id=75 Anderson, W. L. (2002, December 10). Do Austrians wink at business fraud? http://www.mises.org/ story/1112 Anderson, W. L., & Jackson, C. E. (2005, Fall) It’s the economy, stupid: Rudy Giuliani, the wall street prosecutions, and the recession of 1990–91. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 19(4), 19–36. http:// www.mises.org/journals/jls/19_4/19_4_2.pdf Armentano, D. (2010, May 10). Crony capitalism is not capitalism. http://www.lewrockwell.com/ armentano-d/armentano22.1.html Backhouse, R. E. (2002). The penguin history of economics. London, UK: Penguin Books. Baird, C. (1990, Summer). American union law: Sources of conflict. Journal of Labor Research, pp. 269–292. Baird, C. (2000, Fall). Unions and antitrust. The Journal of Labor Research, pp. 585–600. Barnett, W., II, & Block, W. (2007, November). Coase and Van Zandt on lighthouses. Public Finance Review, 35(6), 710–733. Barnett, W., & Block, W. (2009). Coase and Bertrand on lighthouses. Public Choice, 140(1–2), 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9375-x Barry, N. (1998). Business ethics. London: Macmillan. Barry, N. (2000A, July). The logic and morality of takeovers. The Freeman, 50(7). http://www.liberty haven.com/noneoftheabove/morality/logicmorality.shtml Barry, N. (2000B). Respectable trade. London: Adam Smith Institute. Bastiat, F. (1964A). Economic sophisms. New York: Van Nostrand. Bastiat, F. (1964B). Economic harmonies. New York: Van Nostrand. Becker, G. (1995, March 6). It’s simple: Hike the minimum wage, and you put people out of work. Business Week, p. 22.

225

REFERENCES Bennett, J. T., & DiLorenzo, T. (1989). Unfair competition: The profits of nonprofits. New York: Hamilton Press. Bjornskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. V. (2007). The bigger the better? Evidence of the effect of Government size on life satisfaction around the World. Public Choice, 130, 267–292. Block, W., & Yeatts, G. (1999–2000). The economics and ethics of land reform: A critique of the pontifical council for justice and peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform’. Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, 15(1), 37–69. http://www.walter block.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf Block, W., & Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (2007, Summer). Katrina and the future of New Orleans. Telos, 139, pp. 170–185. http://tinyurl.com/2wv8lc; http://journal.telospress.com; http://journal.telospress.com/cgi/ reprint/2007/139/170 Block, W., & Walker, M. A. (1988, June). Entropy in the Canadian economics profession: Sampling consensus on the major issues. Canadian Public Policy, XIV(2), 137–150. Block, W., & Barnett, W., II. (2002, December). The living wage: What’s wrong. The Freeman Ideas on Liberty, 52(12), 23–24. Block, W., & Epstein, R. (2005). Debate on eminent domain. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, 1(3), 1144–1169. Block, W. (2008). [1976]. Defending the undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. Block, W. (1983). Public goods and externalities: The case of roads. The Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, VII(1), Spring, 1–34. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf Block, W. (1990B). The discounted marginal value product - marginal value product controversy: A note. Review of Austrian Economics, IV, 199–207. http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_7.pdf Block, W. (1991, Winter). Labor relations, unions and collective bargaining: A political economic analysis. Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, 16(4), 477–507. Block, W. (1993, January). Malcolm X. Fraser Forum, 18–19. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/ 5361.aspx Block, W. (2000, October). Heritage stumbles on minimum wage. The Free Market, 18(10). http:// www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=324 Block, W. (2001, Spring). The minimum wage: A reply to card and Krueger. Journal of the Tennessee Economics Association. http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_minimumwage-once-again_2001.pdf Block, W. (2002, July-September). On reparations to blacks for slavery. Human Rights Review, 3(4), 53–73. http://www.walterblock.com/publications/reparations_slavery.pdf Block, W. (2002C, January). Delusions of rising wages. New Orleans City Business, 28, p. 28; reprinted in Block, W. (2008). Labor economics from a free market perspective: Employing the unemployable. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing. Block, W. (2003). National defense and the theory of externalities, public goods and clubs. In Hoppe, H.-H. (Ed.), The myth of national defense: Essays on the theory and history of security production. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, 301–334. http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf Block, W. (2006A, June). Katrina: Private enterprise, the dead hand of the past, and weather socialism; An analysis in economic geography. Ethics, Place and Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography; 9(2), 231–241; reprinted in ‘Post-Katrina: Risk assessment, economic analysis and social implications’. (H. Richardson, P. Gordon, & J. Moore, Eds.). Edward Elgar Publishing. Block, W. (2006B, November 27). Deaths by Government: Another missing chapter. http://www.lewrock well.com/block/block66.html Block, W. (2006C). Fanatical, not reasonable: A short correspondence between Walter Block and Milton Friedman (on Friedrich Hayek). Journal of Libertarian Studies, 20(3), Summer, 61–80. http:// www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_4.pdf Block, W. (2008 [1976]). “The profiteer,” “The Speculator”. In Defending the undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. http://mises.org/store/Defending-the-Undefendable-P136C0.aspx Block, W. (2008). Labor economics from a free market perspective: Employing the unemployable. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing. 226

REFERENCES Block, W. (Forthcoming, 2010). Are unions criminal gangs? Global Virtue Ethics Review, 6(1). Block, W. (Unpublished). Toward a libertarian theory of charitable donations. Bovard, J. (2000, November). HUD’s biggest farce? The Free Market, 18(11). http://www.mises.org/ freemarket_detail.asp?control=328&sortorder=articledate Brown, A. (1987, October). The shadow side of affluence: The welfare system and the welfare of the needy. Fraser Forum. Burkhauser, R. V., Couch, K. A., & Wittenburg, D. (1996, April). Who gets what from minimum wage hikes: A replication and re-estimation of card and Krueger. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49(3), 547–552. Bylund, P. (N.d.). Man and matter: A philosophical inquiry into the justification of ownership in land from the basis of self-ownership. http://perbylund.com/academics_polsci_msc.pdf Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1994, September). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793. Carden, A. (2004, June). Mistaken identity. The Free Market. 24(6). http://www.mises.org/freemarket_ detail.asp?control=497&sortorder=articledate Carden, A. (2009). Profit and production. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 12(2), 13–26. http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_2.pdf Carr, S. (2009, November 30). New Orleans educators fighting hunger in schools. In The Times-Picayune. Conquest, R. (1986). The harvest of sorrow. New York: Oxford University Press. Conquest, R. (1990). The great terror. Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton University Press. Cott, T. N. Van. (2006, April 17). George Mason: Protectionism at its worst. http://www.mises.org/story/ 2115 Courtois, S., Werth, N., Panne, J.-L., Paczkowski, A., Bartosek, K., Margolin, J. L., et al. (1999). The black book of communism: Crimes, terror, repression (J. Murphy, & K. Mark, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cowen, T. (Ed.), (1988). The theory of market failure: A critical examination. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press. http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Market-Failure-Critical-Examination/dp/ 0913969133/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200191409&sr=1-1 Crouch, S. (2010, April 27). Gates’ cold shower on the reparations debate: The Harvard professor’s hard facts on slavery are a blow to the “victim studies” hustle. The Root, www.theroot.com/views/gatescold-shower-reparations-debate?page=0,0 De Jasay, A. (1989). Social contract, free ride: A study of the public goods problem. Oxford University Press. http://www.amazon.com/Social-Contract-Free-Ride-Paperbacks/dp/0198239122/ref=sr_1_1?ie= UTF8&s=books&qid=1200191531&sr=1-1 Deere, D., Murphy, K. M., Welch, F. (1995, May). Employment and the 1990–91 minimum-wage hike. American Economic Review, 85(2), 232–237. Democracynow. (2009, August 31). http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/31/four_years_after_katrina_ new_orleans DiLorenzo, T. (2002). The real Lincoln: A new look at Abraham Lincoln, his Agenda, and an unnecessary war. New York: Random House. DiLorenzo, T. (2006A, November 22). Death by government: The missing chapter. http://www.lewrock well.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo114.html DiLorenzo, T. (2006B, November 9). How ‘Sweatshops’ help the poor. http://www.lewrockwell.com/ dilorenzo/dilorenzo113.html Domhoff, G. W. (1990). The power elite and the State: How policy is made in America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Domhoff, G. W. (1971). The higher circles: The governing class in America. New York: Vintage Books. Domhoff, G. W. (1998). Who rules America? Power and politics in the year 2000 (3rd ed.). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California. Domhoff, G.W. (2010) Wealth, income and power. In Who Rules America? (online) Accessed at http:// sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

227

REFERENCES Evans, J., & Block, W. (2002). Labor union policies: Gains or pains? Cross Cultural Management, 9(1), 71–79. Fischel, D. (1995). Pay-back. New York: Harper Business. Frey, B. S., Pommerehne, W. W., Schneider, F., & Gilbert, G. (1984, December). Consensus and dissension among economists: An empirical inquiry, American Economic Review, 74(5), 986–994. Friedman, M. (1970, September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, (13), 122–126. Gallaway, L., & Adie, D. (1995). Review of Card and Krueger’s Myth and measurement: The new economics of the minimum wage. Cato Journal, 15(1). http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-8.html Galles, G. (2007, April 6). Don’t sell short selling short. http://mises.org/daily/2527 Gates, H. L. (2010). Ending the slavery blame-game. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/ 04/23/opinion/23gates.html Gilder, G. (1981). Wealth and poverty. New York: Basic Books Inc. Gordon, D. (Ed.), (1998). Secession, state and liberty. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Greene, Z., Henry, S., Nathanson, C., & Block, W. (2007). Negative impacts of minimum wage and anti sweatshop legislation. Humanomics , 23(2), 83–92. http://tinyurl.com/27fj7f Grim, R. (2009, October 23). Priceless: How the federal reserve bought the economics profession. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html Gross, J. A. (1995). Broken promise: The subversion of U.S. labor relations policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Grossman, P. (1988). Government and economic growth: A non-linear relationship. Public Choice, 56, 193–200. Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Block, W. (1996). Economic freedom of the World, 1975–1995. Vancouver, BC, Canada: the Fraser Institute. Hazlitt, H. (1973). The conquest of poverty. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing. Also New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House. Hazlitt, H. (2008) [1979]. Economics in one lesson (chap. 21). Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. Heldman, D. C. (1977). American labor unions: Political values and financial structure. Washington DC: Council on American Affairs. Heldman, D. C., Bennett, J. T., & Johnson, M. (1981). Deregulating labor relations. Dallas, TX: Fisher Institute. Herberner, J., (1987, Summer). An integration of the wealth of Nations with the theory of moral sentiments. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 8(2), 275–289. http://mises.org/journals/jls/8_2/8_2_7.pdf Hessami, Z. (2010). The size and composition of Government spending in Europe and its impact on well-being. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21195/ Higgs, R. (1995, June). The myth of ‘Failed’ policies. The Free Market, 13(6). http://www.mises.org/ freemarket_detail.asp?control=239&sortorder=articledate Hochschild, A. (1999) King Leopold’s ghost. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. Holcombe, R. (1997). A theory of the theory of public goods. Review of Austrian Economics, 10(1), 1–10. http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE10_1_1.pdf Hoppe, H.-H. (1989, Winter). Fallacies of the public goods theory and the production of security. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, IX(1), 27–46. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf Hoppe, H.-H. (1990, Fall). Marxist and Austrian class analysis. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 9(2), 79–94. http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:K12 nTci91bQJ:www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf+%22Marxist+and+Austrian+Class+Analysis, %22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Hoppe, H.-H. (1993). The economics and ethics of private property: Studies in political economy and philosophy. Boston: Kluwer. Horowitz, D. (2000). The latest civil rights disaster: Ten reasons why reparations for slavery are a bad idea for black people – and racist too. http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/2000/05/30/ reparations/ index.html

228

REFERENCES Mann, B. (n.d.). All my relatives: The binary fractals of the gift economy. At Reality Sandwich at http:// www.realitysandwich.com/gift_economy_fractals Manne, H. (1965). Mergers and the market for corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, (75), 110–118. Maybury-Lewis, D. Millenium: Tribal wisdom and the modern World. New York: Viking. McCallum, B. (1999, March 11). Recent developments in the analysis of monetary policy rules. Homer Jones memorial lecture. http://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/Papers/MCCallumJonesLecture.PDF McCormick, P., & Block, W. (2000, Fall-Spring). The minimum wage: Does it really help workers. Southern Connecticut State University Business Journal, 15(2), 77–80. McGreal, C., Macalister, T., & Gabbat, A. (2010, Apr 29). Deepwater oil slick. The Guardian. http://www. guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/29/deepwater-horizon-oil-slick-us-coast Michelle, L. (2006). Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_ snapshots_20060627/ Mises, L. von. (1978). The clash of group interests and other essays. New York: Center for Libertarian Studies. http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/clash/clash.as Mishel, L., & Walters, M. (2003). How unions help all workers. EPI Briefing Paper 143. Morgenson, G. (2005, October 23). How to slow runaway executive pay. New York Times, Section 3, p. 1. Murphy, R. P. (2006, November 22). The social function of stock speculators. http://mises.org/daily/2381 Murphy, R. P. (2008, August 11). Short-Sale restrictions are an exercise in naked power. http://mises. org/daily/3066 Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy from 1950 to 1980. New York: Basic Books. Nash, R. H. (1986). Poverty and wealth. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books. Neumark, D., & Wascher, W. (1992, October). Employment effects of minimum and subminimum wages: Panel data on state minimum wage laws. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46, 55–81. Nigeria Study. (2003). Nigeria tops happiness survey. BBS news. At http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3157570.stm Norwood, H. (2002). Strikebreaking and intimidation: Mercenaries and masculinity in twentieth-century America. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books. Olasky, M. (1992). The tragedy of American compassion. Chicago: Regnery Gateway. Olasky, M. (1992). The tragedy of American compassion. Chicago: Regnery Gateway. Oppenheimer, F. (1914). 1975. The state. New York: Free Life Editions. Osterfeld, D. (1989, Winter). Anarchism and the public goods issue: Law, courts and the police. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 9(1), 47–68. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_3.pdf Pasour, E.C., Jr. (1981, Fall), The free rider as a basis for government intervention. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, V(4), 453–464. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_6.pdf Paul, E. F. (1987). Property rights and eminent domain. Transaction. Paul, R. (2009). End the fed. New York: Grand Central Publishing. Peden, E., & Bradley. (1989). Government size, productivity, and economic growth: The post-war experience. Public Choice, 61, 229–245. Petro, S. (1957). The labor policy of the free society. New York: Ronald Press. http://www.amazon. com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471072133/lewrockwell/104-7552446-8407165 Philbrook, C. (1953). ‘Realism’ in policy espousal. American Economic Review, 43(5), 846–859. Pirenne, H. (1935). Mohammed and Charlemagne (M. Bernard, Trans.). New York: Barnes and Noble. Powell, B. (2006A). Sweatshop wages and third World workers: Are the jobs worth the sweat? Journal of Labor Research. http://mail.beaconhill.org/~bpowell/sweatshops%20and%20third%20world%20% 20living%20standards.pdf Powell, B. (2006B). In reply to sweatshop sophistries. Human Rights Quarterly. http://mail.beaconhill. org/~bpowell/reply%20to%20sweatshop%20sophistries.pdf Powell, B., & Skarbek, D. (2005, August 2). Don’t get into a lather about sweatshops. Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p09s02-coop.html Raico, R. (1977, Summer). Classical liberal exploitation theory: A comment on Professor Liggio’s paper. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 1(3), 179–184. 230

REFERENCES Horowitz, D. (2002). Uncivil wars: The controversy over reparations for slavery. San Francisco: Encounter Books. Hughes, J. R. T. (1977). The governmental habit: Economic controls from colonial times to the present. New York: Basic Books. Also shows US ain’t laissez faire in 19th cent. Hughes, M. (1988). Review of Walter W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987, in The Philanthropist, 7(4), Summer, pp. 61–65. Hughes, M. (1989). Unmasking the two-tier tax-credit scheme. The Philanthropist, 8(2), 16–31. Hughes, M. (1998). Review of Walter Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (1987); Austrian Economics Newsletter, 10(1), Fall, p. 8. http://mises.org/journals/aen/aen10_1_1.pdf Hughes, M. (1990, Fall). Counterpoint: A response to Bennett and DiLorenzo. The Philanthropist, 9(3), 43–56. Hughes, M. (Unpublished). The ties that bind. Hummel, J. R. (1996). Emancipating slaves, enslaving free men: A history of the American civil war. Chicago: Open Court. Hummel, J. (1990). National goods vs. Public goods: Defense, disarmament and free riders. The Review of Austrian Economics, IV, 88–122. http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae4_1_4.pdf. Hutt, W. H. (1973). The strike threat system: The economic consequences of collective bargaining. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870001868/lewrock well/104-7552446-8407165. Hutt, W. H. (1989). Trade unions: The private use of coercive power. The Review of Austrian Economics, III, 109–120. http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae3_1_7.pdf Jacobs, J. (1961). The death of life of great American cities. New York: Modern Library. Jensen, M. (1988). Takeovers: Their causes and consequences. Journal of Economic Perspectives, (2), 21–48. Kinsella, S. N. (2003, Spring). A libertarian theory of contract: Title transfer, binding promises, and inalienability. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(2), 11–37. http://www.mises.org/journals/ jls/17_2/ 17_2_2.pdf Kinsella, S. N. (2006, September 7). How we come to own ourselves. http://www.mises.org/story/2291 Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, opportunity and profit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klein, D. B., & Dompe, S. (2007, January). Reasons for supporting the minimum wage: Asking signatories of the ‘Raise the Minimum Wage’ statement. Economic Journal Watch, 4(1), 125–167. Knoop, T. A. (1999). Growth, welfare and the size of government. In Economic inquiry (Vol. 37). Kolko, G. (1963). Triumph of conservatism. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Kolko, G. (1970). Railroads and regulation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Krugman, P. (1997, March 20). In praise of cheap labor: Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all. Slate, the Dismal Economist. http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html?re LaBletta, N. & Block, W. (1999). The restoration of the American dream: A case for abolishing welfare. Humanomics, 15(4), 55–65. Landsburg, S. E. (2004, July 9). The sin of wages; the real reason to oppose the minimum wage. Slate. http://slate.msn.com/id/2103486 Lee, D. (1985, Spring). The politics of poverty and the poverty of politics. Cato Journal, 5(1). Lemieux, P. (2005, August 15). The anti-capitalistic inquisition. Liebowitz, S. J., & Day, T. E. (1998, January). Mortgage discrimination in Boston: Where’s the bias? Economic Inquiry, 1–27. http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/mortgage/mortgages.pdf Liebowitz, Stan. (2008, April 21). The real scandal: how feds invited the mortgage mess. The New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911. htm?page=0 Locke, J. (1948). In E. Barker (Ed.), An essay concerning the true origin, extent and end of civil Government, Social Contract (pp. 17–18). New York: Oxford University Press. Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. New York: Praeger Publishers. Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2006). IQ and global inequality, Washington Summit Publishers.

229

REFERENCES Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Random House. Reynolds, M. O. (1984). Power and privilege: Labor unions in America. New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Reynolds, M. O. (1987). Making America poorer: The cost of labor law, Washington DC: Cato Institute. Ricketts, M. (1994). The economics of business enterprise. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Robinson, R. (2000). The debt: What America owes to blacks. New York: Dutton. Rockwell, L. H., Jr., & Block, W. (Forthcoming, 2010). The economics and ethics of Hurricane Katrina. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Rockwell, L. (1989, June). The free market vs. the managerial elite. The Free Market, VII(6). http://www. mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=580&sortorder=articledate Rockwell, L. (1990). Michael R. Milken: Political prisoner? The Economics of Liberty Auburn (pp. 70–72). Mises Institute. http://www.mises.org/resources/2948 Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (2000, May 5). Why not feel sorry for BP? http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/ feel-sorry-for-bp144.html Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (2001, December 31). Liberty and the common good. http://www.mises.org/article. aspx?Id=860 Rothbard, M. N. (1973). For a new liberty (chap. 8). “Welfare and the Welfare State”, New York: Macmillan. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp Rothbard, M. N. (1985, January). Airport congestion: A case of market failure? The Free Market (pp. 5–4). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rothbard, M. N. (1988, December). Outlawing jobs: The minimum wage, once more. The Free Market (Vol. 1, pp. 7–8). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rothbard, M. N. (1989, July). Why not feel sorry for Exxon? Liberty Magazine. http://www.lewrockwell. com/rothbard/rothbard224.html Rothbard, M. N. (1993). Man, economy and state. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute. http://www.amazon. com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466323/lewrockwell/104-7552446-8407165; http://www.mises.org/ rothbard/mes.asp Rothbard, M. N. (1995a). Rethinking The ‘80s. In Making Economic Sense (chap. 28). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises. http://www.mises.org/econsense/ch28.asp Rothbard, M. N. (1995b). Michael R. Milken vs. the power elite. In Making economic sense (chap. 49). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises. Institute. http://www.mises.org/econsense/econsense.asp; http:// www.mises.org/econsense/ch49.asp Rothbard, M. N. (1995c). The celebrated Adam Smith. In Economic thought before Adam Smith: An Austrian perspective on the history of economic thought (Vol. I, pp. 433–474). Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing Company. Rothbard, M. N. (1997). The logic of action: Applications and criticism from the Austrian School (Vol. II). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Rothbard, M. N. (1998 [1982]). Welfare and the welfare State. In The ethics of liberty (pp. 160–193). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp Rozeff, M. S. (2005, September 1). Original appropriation and its critics. http://www.lewrockwell.com/ rozeff/rozeff18.html Rummel, R. J. (1992). Democide: Nazi genocide and mass murder. Rutgers, NJ: Transaction Publisher. Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by Government. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Rummel, R. J. (1997). Statistics on democide. Center on National Security and Law, University of Virginia. Schall, J. V., & S.J. (1990). Religion, wealth and poverty. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute. Schmidtz, D. (1991). The limits of Government: An essay on the public goods argument. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Schmidt, E. P. (1973). Union power and the public interest. Los Angeles: Nash. Scott, J. (1999). Book review of The commanding heights: The battle between government and the marketplace that is remaking the modern world (D. Yergin, & J. Stanislaw, Ed.). New York: Simon

231

REFERENCES and Schuster, 1998. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 2(1), Winter, 79–83; http://www. mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_1_5.pdf Sechrest, L. (2003). Privateering and National defense: Naval warfare for private profit. In H.-H., Hoppe (Ed.), The myth of national defense: Essays on the theory and history of security production (pp. 239–274). Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Sechrest, L. (2004A, Summer). Public goods and private solutions in maritime history. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7(2), 3–27. http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_2_1.pdf Sechrest, L. (2004B, August) Private provision of public goods: Theoretical issues and some examples from maritime history. ICFAI Journal of Public Finance, II(3), 45–73. Sechrest, L. (2007, Summer). Privately funded and built U.S. warships in the Quasi-War of 1797–1801. The Independent Review, 12(1), 101–113. Shea, B. (2010). Solidarity forever: The power invested in worker collectives under United States law. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 22, 219–246. http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_11.pdf Sheehan, J. M. (2002, May). Socially irresponsible investing. The Free Market, 20(5). http://www. mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=398&sortorder=articledate Shumaker. (n.d.). http://efssociety.blogspot.com/2009/12/mondragon-reclaiming-regional.html Smith, A. (1759 [1790]). The theory of moral sentiments (6th ed.). London: A. Millar. Smith, A. [1776] 1979). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. Sohr, K., & Block, W. (1997, November). The minimum wage. The Freeman Ideas on Liberty, 681–682. Solomon, L. (2010, May 28). U.S. law disaster: Washington laid the groundwork for the gulf oil spill by letting the offshore oil industry dodge its liabilities. The National Post. http://www.nationalpost.com/ m/story.html?id=3003066&s=Today’s%20Newspaper Sowell, T. (1995, May 22). Repealing the law of gravity. Forbes. Stepp, W. (2001, March 14). Nike is right. Sundstrom, W. A. (2003, August 15). Review of Stephen H. Norwood. In Strikebreaking and intimidation: Mercenaries and masculinity in twentieth-century America. EH.Net Economic History Services. http:// eh.net/bookreviews/library/0664 Ten planks of communism in America. (n.d.). http://www.squidoo.com/communists-manifesto Tucker, W. (1984, July). Black family agonistes. The American Spectator, 14–17. Vuk, V. (2006A). Journalism and underwater basket weaving. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ vuk5.html Vuk, V. (2006B). Socialist man in the big easy. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vuk/socialist-man-no.html; http://www.mises.org/story/2319 White, L. H. (2005). The federal reserve system’s influence on research in monetary economics. Econ Journal Watch, 2(2), 325–354. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2006). Income inequality and health: A review and explanation of the evidence. Social Science & Medicine, 62(7), 1768–1784. Williams, W. E. (1982). The state against blacks. New York: McGraw-Hill. Williams, W. (2010, May 12). Free markets: Pro-Rich or pro-poor. Jewish World Review. http://www. lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams33.html Woods, T. E., Jr. (2008). 33 Questions about American history you’re not supposed to ask. New York: Three Rivers Press. Woods, T. E., Jr. (2009). Meltdown: A free-market look at why the stock market collapsed, the economy tanked, and government Bailouts will make things worse. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Woods, T. E., Jr. (2010, April 27). Were American Indians really environmentalists? http://www.lew rockwell.com/woods/woods132.html Zwolinski, M. (2007). Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17, 689–727. http:// secure.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/toc?openform&journal=pdc_beq&yearrange=2000 - 2010&category= 0017 _0004_2007#0017_0004_2007 232

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 5: A CASE STUDY: PROTESTING ARIZONA’S ANTI-HISPANIC LEGISLATION Baldwin, L. V. (1992). To make the wounded whole: The cultural legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. (p. 298). Fortress Press. Becker, G. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Block, W. (2010). Are unions criminal gangs? Global Virtue Ethics Review, 6(1), 28–49. http://www. spaef.com/article.php?id=1176; http://www.spaef.com/file.php?id=1176 Block, W., & Callahan, G. (2003, October-December). Is there a right to immigration? A libertarian perspective. Human Rights Review, 5(1), 46–71. http://www.walterblock.com/publications/blockcallahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdf. Block, W. (1998). A libertarian case for free immigration. Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, 13(2), summer, 167–186. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf Block, W. (Forthcoming, 2010). Rejoinder to Kinsella and Tinsley on incitement, causation, aggression and praxeology. Journal of Libertarian Studies. Brimelow, P. (1996). Alien Nation: Common sense about America’s immigration disaster. New York: Harper Perennial. Domhoff, G. W. (1971). The higher circles: The governing class in America. New York: Vintage Books. Domhoff, G. W. (1998). Who rules America? Power and politics in the year 2000 (3rd ed.). Santa Cruz, CA: University of California. Elder, L. (2010, June 3). Letting Rand Paul twist in the wind. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ elder1.1.1.html Four Arrows. (2008). Unlearning the language of conquest: Scholars expose anti-Indianism in America. City: University of Texas Press. Gather. (2010). Oil spill - Who is to blame for deepwater drilling? http://politics.gather.com/view Article.action?articleId=281474978273601 Gregory, A., & Block, W. (2007, Fall). On immigration: Reply to Hoppe. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 21(3), 25–42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., & Block, W. (1996). Economic freedom of the World, 1975–1995. Vancouver, BC, Canada: the Fraser Institute. Hoppe, H.-H. (1990, Fall). Marxist and Austrian class analysis. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 9(2), 79–94. http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf Hoppe, H-H. (1998, Summer). The case for free trade and restricted immigration. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, 13(2), 221–233. Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy, the God that failed: The economics and politics of monarchy, democracy and natural order (pp. 159–160), New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hoppe, H.-H. (2002, Winter). Natural order, the State, and the immigration problem. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 16(1), 75–97. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf Hornberger, J. (2010, May 22). “Rand Paul, civil rights, and more liberal hypocrisy on race. http:// www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=875 Kolko, G. (1963). Triumph of conservatism. Chicago: Quadrangle Books. Law Info. (2010). http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Articles/Oil-Spill/Federal/how-much-will-bp-haveto-pay-damage-caps-for-.html Limbaugh, R. (2010, May 17). Responsibility for the oil spill is on you, environmentalist wackos. http:// www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051710/content/01125106.guest.html Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. New York: HarperCollins. Polnar, M., & Woods, T. E. (Eds.), (2008). We who dared to say no to war: American antiwar writing from 1812 to now. New York: Basic Books. Public Policy Institute of California. (2008). Press Release August 19, 2008. http://www.ppic.org/main/ pressrelease.asp?p=869.

233

REFERENCES Radosh, R., & Rothbard, M. N. (Eds.), (1972). A new history of Leviathan. New York: E. P. Dutton. http://mises.org/books/newhistoryleviathan.pdf Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Random House. Roback, J. (1986). The political economy of segregation: The case of segregated streetcars. Journal of Economic History, XLVI(4), 893–917. Rockwell, L. H., Jr. (2008). The left, the right and the State. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute. Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The ethics of liberty. New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises. rg/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp. Selick, K. (1995, October). Calling a slave a slave. The Canadian Lawyer. http://www.karenselick.com/ CL9510.html Solomon, L. (2010, May 15). A $13 B business. National Post. http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/ story.html?id=ec989b27-9201-4573-a44c-5bdae7268837 Sowell, T. (2007). A conflict of visions (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Straub, N. (2010, May 25). Interior probe finds fraternizing, porn and drugs at MMS Office in La. Greenwire. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/25/25greenwire-interior-probe-finds-fraternizing-porn-anddru-45260.html Trevor-Roper, H. (1965). The rise of Christian Europe. London: Thames and Hudson. Williams, W. E. (2003, Fall). Discrimination: The Law vs. Morality. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 111–136. http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=expresso Williams, W. (2010, June 3). The right to discriminate. http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/wwilliams36.html

234

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Walter Block is Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, and Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute. He earned his PhD in economics at Columbia University in 1972. He has taught at Rutgers, SUNY Stony Brook, Baruch CUNY and the University of Central Arkansas. He is the author of some 300 articles in professional journals, two dozen books, including the classic Defending the Undefendable, and hundreds of op eds. He lectures widely on college campuses and appears regularly on television and radio shows. Four Arrows is a professor in the College of Educational Leadership and Change at Fielding Graduate University. After earning his doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction from Boise State University in 1998, he served as Dean of Education at Oglala Lakota College. He is the author of 20 books, including Unlearning the Language of Conquest (UT Press) and Critical Neurophilosophy and Indigenous Wisdom (Sense); a number of invited book chapters and more than 100 journal articles. Of Cherokee and Scots-Irish Ancestry, he is an Oglala pipe carrier and Sun Dancer.

235