The Freeman 1989 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

38Readers' ForumTo the Editors:In your September 1988 issue, you carrieda piece entitled "What Should We Do AboutLuck?" Without wishing to plunge into the intricatephilosophical issues raised by the questionof whether having "character" is a matterof luck, I do wish to make one important observation.If being competent, self-assured, andtherefore successful is a matter of luck, this isall the more reason not to penalize success. Ifwe are, basically, subject to determinism, thenit is surely essential to structure penalties andrewards in such a way as to manipulate peopleinto having successful, rewarding lives. Themore scope there is for character to be selfgrounded,the more we might expect people tostrive and succeed without tangible rewards, althoughwe might still want to say that characteris admirable and should be rewarded. But ifcharacter and aptitude are determined mechanicallyby the outside world, let us by all meanscreate an outside world in which as many peopleas possible are determined into having characterand aptitude. Either way, reward success,not failure.To the Editors:-JOHN S. P. ROBSONAustin, TexasAs a Jew and a libertarian, I read with interestMilton Friedman's essay, "Capitalism and theJews" (The Freeman, October 1988). Dr.Friedman admitted to having no answer for thequestion of why intellectuals, and Jews in particular,tend to dislike capitalism. I think I haveone.Judaism stresses education, and college degreesare common among Jews. But before weconclude that Jews' anti-capitalist beliefs wereinstilled by their professors, we must analyzethis argument. It assumes that the professors inquestion, in their tum, were radicalized by theirprofessors, and so on. So where did the originalradical professors come from? While there isample truth in the assertion that professors tendto radicalize students, we must reject it as anotherchicken-vs.-egg argument.I find it far more accurate to say that intellectualstend to feel guilty about not being pooror not feeling as though they belong to theworking class, as it were. And if one did feelsuch guilt, would one support a system that allowscitizens to work for their own benefit (capitalism),or would one support a system thatdemands that citizens do penance by workingfor the benefit of others (socialism)? Leftist andegalitarian beliefs, not surprisingly, have alwaysfigured prominently in the lives of thosewho have the most guilt to relieve, and this putsintellectuals in the same category with filmstars, poets, and writers even though the intellectualsmay not be wealthy. One's surnameneed not be Rockefeller or Fonda to regret notbeing poor; all one need do is not be poor.Educated people, in many cases, have the samesort of vulnerability, since their education relievesthem of the necessity ofperforming manuallabor. Since most Jews fall into this category,they can be expected to favor guiltrelieving(egalitarian) politics to any other kind.For those who are working to win over brightminds to. our side, I therefore recommend,along with the usu~l reliance on facts and logic,an equal emphasis on promoting pride andself-respect--or anything else that might successfullycombat guilt.-ALLAN LEVITEDallas, Texas(Readers are invited to share their opinionson ideas appearing in The Freeman.)