The Libertarian Review February 1979 - Libertarianism.org

Crossing theborderI FIRST MET THE MANI'll call Rinaldo a little morethan a year ago, just beforehe was deported for the secondtime. Rinaldo had beenpulled over by the Los Ange1espolice for a run-of-themilltraffic violation. He'dbeen hauled in when the arrestingofficers learned hiscar hadseveral dozen unpaidparking tickets on it. Andonce he was at police headquarters,downtown, itdidn't take long to establishthat Rinaldo was an illegal"alien:' From there it was 24hours in the L.A. city slammer,followed by another 48or 72 in a work camp in thenearby Santa Clarita Valley,then a bus ride back toMexico.And all because Rinaldowas so irresponsible abouthis driving and his parkingtickets. It was ironic, becauseotherwise Rinaldodidn't have an irresponsiblebone in his body. Heoriginally came north to theUnited States from hisfather's poor farm in northernMexico, because hewanted to do better for himselfin life than live in thedesert and eat cactus. Thefarm was big enough to supportRinaldo's father and hisyounger brother Pancho.But it wasn't big enough tosupport him too. And unemploymentin Mexican citiesaverages 50 percent of thework force.So Rinaldo came northand worked where he could,doing whatever work waswanted, mostly working as acarpenter for small buildingcontractors. He madeenough to rent an apartmentfor himself and his wifeLuisa, enough to bring hisfather and brother up fromMexico each winterfor threeyears running, and enoughto buy a car. The problemsbeganwhen he began drivingthe car.The first time he was deported,Rinaldo got back bypaying $250 to a guide whomakes his living leading illegalaliens into the UnitedStates through the mountainsofSouthern California.They have togo withoutfoodfor three days, and they getpretty dirty, but they don'thave any trouble from theborder patrol. The terrain'stoo rough.The second time he wasdeported, Rinaldo got backthe same way, by paying theguide another $250. Whenyou think about the improvementliving in thiscountry has meant inRinaldo's life, it's not difficultto understand why hekeeps coming back, even atso high a price.The most reliable currentestimates are that more thanseven and a half million- 'probably around ten million-Latin Americans likeRinaldo are now living illegallyin the United States.Contrary to popular myth,they pay more in taxes everyyear than they collect in servicesfrom government at alllevels, and they work primarilyat jobs Americancitizens refuse to consider:washing cars, cleaningschools and office buildings,washing dishes, keepingother people's houses. EveryAmerican taxpayer couldsave himself a goodly chunkof money and enjoy an improvementin his standard ofliving ifthe Immigration andNaturalization Service wereabolished tomorrow, andthe borders were opened toanyone who wanted to makehis home in this country.Yet the spending goes on.And the spenders have beenmeeting with scant argumentin recent months whenthey've proposed that theflow ofmoney be increased.Early in December, INSCommissioner LeonelCastillo asked Congress fornew legislation imposingpenalties on employers whoknowingly hire illegals-andit's a rare thing indeed whennew penalties don't create aneed for new enforcers andnew bureaucratic departmentsand new equipmentand new salaries and newpayrolls and new budgets.More directly to the pointwas Castillo's proposal a fewdays later that the INS disposeof two or three milliondollars by constructing acouple of six-mile fencesalong the border, each fenceto be 12 feet high on a concretefoundation sunk twofeet into the ground to discouragetunnelling. Climberswould be discouraged bya chain link section designedto sway, and by razor-sharppoints along the fence's top.And Castillo isn't the onlypolitician asking for moremoney to close off immigrationfrom the south. The reportof the House SelectCommittee on Population,released just before Christmas,recommends that theU.S. launch a program of"major economic aid" toMexico, "to reduce theeconomic disparity" betweenthe two countries.The panel sees this "disparity"as· "a major reasonMexicans come here;'-andso proposes, in effect, tokeep them out by having thewealth they're coming afterdelivered to them beforetheyleave to come after it.Chances are now good, ofcourse, that the Mexicaneconomy will perk up withoutsuch aid, because of thenewly discovered oil reserveswhich may make Mexico abigger-andricher-oilproducerthan Saudi Arabia bythe 1980s. A Mexican oilboom could make a dramaticdent in the Mexicanunemploymentproblem andmake it just as attractive forMexicans to stay at home asto come to the U.S. Now,they can earn ten times whatthey can earn at home, bycoming to the U.S. and acceptingeven "menial" jobs.But even if the oil boomcomes soonerthanexpected,before our "representatives"in Washington can vote tobribe the Mexicans to stay intheir own country, it will remainsignificant that such aludicrous idea was proposedwith no apparent ironic orsatirical intent. What the5FEBRUARY 1979

past few months are practicinga kind of domestic imperialism."It is fashionable;'the paper wrote,to attribute the lack ofeconomicdevelopment in the ThirdWorldto decisions made from afarabout its natural resources. Thecolonial administrators departed,the story goes, only to bereplaced by neocolonialists inLondon, Bonn, Paris and Washington,who locked up ThirdWorld resources in uses thatkept the emerging nation-statespoor. This explanation ofThirdWorld poverty still inspires agreat deal ofoutrage against theU.S. among university peopleand provides excuses for socialistfailures in the Third World.We are puzzled why this doctrineis so narrowly applied. Itseems to us that it is at least asgood an explanation for thegrowing lack ofdevelopment inAlaska and the western states.And this colonialism hasconsequences far beyondtheconfines ofthe western statesbeing colonially administered."The result;' says theWall Street Journal;, is theprotection of "eastern laborunions, industrial plants andresources from competition.The environmental movementprovides a convenientmaskfor any eastern legislatorswho want westerners forcustomers, not competitors:'Another result of the colonialadministration ofAlaskan lands from Washingtonis the exacerbation ofthe energy crisis. "The IndependentPetroleum Associationsays that as a result oflaw or administrative proceduresabout 500 millionfederal acres, roughly onefourthof the U.S., are offlimits to oil and gas development,"reports the Journal."At a time when we are growingincreasingly dependenton unstable foreign sourcesof energy, the most rapidlygrowing aspect ofthe Americaneconomy is the land andresources that are beingremoved from development."But what about the thousandsofpeople whosincerelydesire to preserve the naturalbeauty of the environment?Who believe that human beingsbenefit from access tosuch preserved lands? Letthem take their case to thefree market. They won't bedisappointed. According toa recent issue of Timemagazine, two Californiabusinessmen have been makingfinancial killings by buyingthousands of acres ofwilderness and operatingthem as private wildernessparks. So far they've developedthe 5100 acre R-Ranchin Northern California'sSiskiyou County, the 7000acre Pines RecreationalPark, also in Northern California,and the StallionSprings Horse Ranch inSouthern California. Nooneis allowed to build anything,dig anything or drive anythingon this land; onlycampers, hikers and naturelovers are welcome, andonlyif they pay. The use of theprivate wilderness parks islimited to those who buyshares in the ownership; thatsaves them from the despoilmentmoststate parks suffer,and it gives those who usethem an incentive to keepthem clean and unspoiled: ifthey litter, they'll be litteringtheir own property.Perhaps the most importantfact in the Time magazinereport on these new privatelyowned wildernessparks is the news that themen who are developingthem are making a lot ofmoney doing it: thatthere's ademand, on the market, forthe kind of wilderness conservationthe governmentwouldlike us tobelieve is onlypossible through publicownership ofland. Itisn't alwaysor necessarily true thatthe drive to make money producesdespoilers of nature.Libertarians have been arguingfor centuries that it isunnecessary for governmentto protect its citizens fromthemselves, because mostpeople are much betterjudges of how they can bestlive their ownlives than eventhe noblest and best of governmentbureaucracies.They've also argued that themain result of using governmentto protect people fromeach other is that the peopleyou most need to be protectedfrom will tend overtime to become part of thegovernment. Government,in other words, is useless atprotectingpeople from themselves,and dubious at protectingthem from eachother. It should come as nosurprise, then, that it's notreally necessary for governmentto protect MotherNature either. - JRLibertarianislnand thevictint's rights:capitalpunishntentIN A FREE AND VOLUNtarysociety, someone whosuffered death as theresult ofa premeditated act of killingor as the result ofa premeditatedact ofaggression wouldhave the right, enforceableby his assigned agent or heir,to equal punishment beingenforced against the killer.The victim, agent or heirmight, of course, be willingto forego that punishmentand accept some other punishmentinstead. That is theright of any victim-to optfor a lesser punishment thanthe one he has a right to enforceagainst an aggressor.But, it is central to the conceptof a libertarian societythat the victim has the right,at the least, to a punishmentof the aggressor equal to thecrime inflicted onthe victim.Historically, stateless andquasi-libertarian societieshave based their successfulcriminal codes upon thatright, including the right ofthe murderer's victim to theexecution ofthe murderer.Christianity, and other religions,have tended to seekto eliminate orreduce the extentofthatrightofthe victimin an attempttocreateconditionsof reconciliation andpeace. But, for themostpart,this has been in the contextofmilitaryandnon-commercialsocieties where the officialculture encouraged bloodletting.In one sense, much ofthe problem ofcrime in generalandmurderin particularat the present time is theresult ofthe growth ofa violentsub-culture in the midstof a commercial, peacefulsociety. There has been a reversalof the transformationof society from the militaryto the commercial (as HerbertSpencer would describeit). This reversal is rooted inthe increase of state power,i.e., in organized violence. Itwill lessen as the extent ofstate power lessens. But inthe meantime, the victims ofthis violence resulting fromthe increase in state powershouldcontinueto have theirright to equal justice unimpairedso thatthey may exerciseit against life-taking aggressors.Ofcourse, there is validityin the arguments of thosewho propose that not takingthe murderer's life may bemore beneficial to the victim,his agent orheirs. Thesemight prefer that the criminal'slife be spared so thatthe net product of his workcould pay whatever the adjudgedmonetary compensationwould be for the victim,his agent or heirs. But iftheyprefer the justice of endingthe criminal's life to the benefitsof the monetary compensation,that is theirchoice to make. Of course,because there is the possibilityof monetary compensation,many persons may decideto bind their agents orheirs by contracts with trusteesto pursue the route ofjustice through execution inorder to insure thatheirs andmurderers do not have an incentiveto take their lives.A point of discussion forlibertarians would be the issueofthe use of the existingstate structure for the implementationof the victim'sright to the execution of hismurderer. Certainly, if libertarianswere prepared to setup an alternative juridical7FEBRUARY 1979

8intellectualization of foreignpolicy. The whole referenceofpolicy-making has shiftedaway from the practical realitiesofour own political, social,and economic system,to the abstract state of theoutside world. There isheightened sesitivity to theso-called global "correlationof forces" (to borrow aMarxist term). There is aninordinate emphasis onmaintaining the "credibility"of American force and preservingexternal "equilibrium?'This is an outside-in wayof looking at foreign policy.Domestic loyalties and resourcesare mobilized by ourgovernment to support thegame of foreign affairssystemto provide the deathpenalty as an alternative tothe present state structure,once that alternative systembecame operative, oppositionto use of the currentstate courts would becomelogical. However, currentlyone of the major argumentsfor an alternative juridicalsystem in the eyes ofthe publicisthefailure oftheexistingstate system to enforce thevictim's right with referenceto his murderer. It is thestate's failure to provide recoursefor this right whichhas created one of the basesfor public support ofthe libertarianphilosophy. At thesame time, the right ofa victimto justice through the existingcourt system in lieu ofan alternative juridical systemis reasonable and just.Anyone is free to boycottthatsystem andtoeschewhisrights, ifhe chooses to do so.But no libertarian can arguein favor ofthe denial ofa victim'sright to justice throughthe only means which doesexist to provide that service.Obviously, given the factthat the state court system isvery likely to handlethe judicialfunction incompetently,it is possible that some whoare not guilty could be executed.Thus, libertariansshould demand the greatestobservation of the rightsof the accused until foundguilty. However, criticismshouldnotbedirected againstthe legitimate service ofcapitalpunishment but againststrict application of therights of the accused untilprovenguilty. Itis the dutyoflibertarians both to defendthe public's right to equaljustice with murderers, andto criticize any tendency bythe public, in the context ofthe state court system's failuretoprovidethatservice, toseek redress in a lessening ofthe civil rights ofthe accuseduntil proven guilty. - LPL([::>"Carter administration foreign policy is not a whit less confused than that of Nixon and Kissinger:'GuestEditorialsProfessorsand policiesONE OF THE MAINtroubles with American foreignpolicy these days is thatit is the productofprofessors-theorists, conceptualizers-the gnomes of Harvardand Columbia and other notableAmerican academiesthat furnish every administration'sforeign policy establishment.What we see isnot that myth of the liberals-the "militarization of foreignpolicy." It is rather theTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEWwhich is played by powerdazzledacademics, in itsown airy terms of nationalprestige and internationalinfluence. They play nationslike "cards;' and pursuetheirtriangular geopoliticalschemes; they tilt or unhingeregional balances, and inviteexemplary tests of strengthand resolve. The score iskept, notin terms ofnationalwell-being and the safety ofthe individual American citizen,but in a sort of "zerosum"calculus, where othernations' gains are necessarilyour losses, and vice versa.For all their heavyweightverbiage, there is a real confusiononthe partofour academicpolicy-makers aboutthe purpose of foreignpolicy-a confusion that theCarter administrationshares with its predecessors.Brzezinski is not a whit differentin this respect fromKissinger. Watching thesepeople, you getthe sense, notof people at work, but ofpeople atplay-thoughitis arather grim kind of play. Itcertainly isn't business asmost ofus understand it. Instead,there has to be a bigtheme. In the words ofBrzezinski, you "choose" a"focus"-something like"planetary humanism" or"power realism;' or the"managed interdependence"that is exemplified byBrzezinski's own TrilateralCommission. And then youmake up the rules.In all their fabulous intellectualgames, towhich mostcitizens are invited as idlespectators, the professorstrategistsnever bringforeign policy down to thebottom line-how other nations'behavior,andwhatwedo to influence it, might affectthe lives and interests ofordinary American citizens.I would almost rather entrustour foreign policyinsofaras I would entrust itat all-to a tactical commanderwho understandswhat a ditch is, a patch ofcover; that a wound hurts ordisables; that you, andothers, canget killed in an attackor in a defense; thatthere are always unforeseenlosses; and that some oddsare too steep to accept nomatter what the prospect ofpossible gain.The habit ofconfrontationYOU ALL REMEMBERthe foreign policy of Nixonand Kissinger. Despite theirprofessions ofpeace-making,detente, and internationalcooperation, they waged abelligerent foreign policyintenton creating positionsof strength; concerned witha reputation for decisive,violent actions; dependenton nuclear threats; anxious

to fight for balances ofpowerat the drop ofa bomb, or amissile. They were prone toglobalize every regional encounter-anylocal revolution,military coup, orchange of government, anynationalization or expropriation,any little border war lbetween neighboring countries.Indeed, a succession ofAmerican administrationsfor the pastthree decades hasdeveloped a habit of confrontation.And the Carteradministration, despite itscriticism of Nixon andKissinger before it came tooffice, is no exception orimprovement.If anything,there is even more confrontationandless cooperationparticularlywith our majoradversary, the Soviet Union.There is more to defend inthe world now, and so therewill be more occasions to defendit. To the traditionalobjects of quarrels betweennations, the Carter administrationhas added some additionalbaggage: economicwarfare, and"humanrights"-the knee-jerk defense ofour own peculiar values inother countries.By adopting a so-called"global agenda," and by insistingon the "linkage" ofallthings with the behavior ofthe Soviet Union, the Carter­Brzezinski regime has multipliedthe occasions for interventionabroad.To get the flavor ofthis administration'sapproach toforeign policy, you have tolook at Brzezinski's obsessionwithwhathe calls "will:'Every foreign challenge andprobe is somehow a test ofour resolve, our crediblity.To him the onlytrouble withVietnam was that it has induceda "self-imposed paralysis;'as he puts it.But this is just a tissue ofabstractions. Because, whenwe speakofthe"will"ofanation,we aren't talking aboutthe state ofmindofan individual.We are talking aboutthe operation of a complexpolitical and social systemtheUnited States. A presidentcan't just exercise his"will"-he can only try tomobilize support from thecitizens of his country. Andsupport is what is eroding inthis country, as Americansbegin to understand the fullcosts, and experience thepains and sacrifices, of ourforty-year binge ofinterventionistforeign policy.The Carter-Brzezinski administrationis trying to impressuponouradversaries inthe world certain "codes ofconduct;' or "rules of thegame:' Well, they can inventthe rules, but how do theypropose to enforce them?Who will put the bell on thecat? And at whose expense?The Carter administrationisn't giving much thought tothose questions, as it calls for139-billion-dollar defensebudgets and perpetuatesdouble-digit inflation.Individual American citizensare being askedto spendand risk in order to put somecards in the hands of a smallcoterie of foreign policybureaucrats, who want toplaytheirpowergames in theworld.-Earl C. Ravenal9FEBRUARY 1979

BILLBIRMINGHAMON JANUARY 8,1979, the US SupremeCourt, withonly two dissenters,refused to hear theappeal of two womenserving life sentencesfor possessingorsellingless thananounce of cocaine.One -of the dissenters,Justice ThurgoodMarshall, denouncedthe NewYork City law underwhich the two weresentenced as unconstitutionallysever~,noting that it makesfirst time offendersliable to even longersentences than thosefor manslaughterand forcible rape.Butsinceittakesfouror more justices togrant review of anappeal, the Courtletit stand. OnJanuary9, the following day,theCourtruled 8to1that by 'exempting10 women from invol-untary jury duty, the State ofMissouri had denied a murdersuspectajurymadeupofacross-sectionofthecommunity,and so trampled upon hisconstitutional rights.Great Moments in PoliticalPhilosophy: On January 11,1979. Rep. Henry A.Waxman(D-CA) is inspired todenounce Billy Carter's businessdealings with Libyansin these words: "I find itunspeakably low that a manuses his relationship with thePresident of the UnitedStates to promote foreignpolicy interests which Ibelieve are contrary to thebest interests of the UnitedStates:' (Los Angeles Times,January 12,1979.)"If they were combined,an authoritative British navalwriter said today, Arabnavies in the Mediterraneancould threaten the supremacythere of the US SixthFleet:' (Reuters, January 10,1979.)Theexpertis oneJohnMarriott, who has made astudy of modern fast missileboats. Descendants ,of thetorpedo boats ofWorld WarII, they measure 150 feet orless in length, butcarryguidedmissiles that can sink muchlarger vessels. Duringthe SixDay War of 1967, for exampie,an Egyptian FMB used aSoviet-made Styx missile,costing about $20,000, tosink the $150 million Israelidestroyer Eiath. The ArabnationsontheMediterraneanwill soon have 77 fast missileboats. Throw in YasserArafat's submarine (Libyarecently gave the PalestineLiberation Organization asub they had lying around,which the PLO christenedthe Fatah) and the Arabforces might well be able toseriously cripple the Americanfleet. One more reason,if one were needed, for anisolationist foreign policy.k-'''-'~'"'~'''''"'''-"'"'''-IThey may be calling him ason of a camel, or whatever,by the time you read this,butlast December Egyptiansstill liked Jimmy Carter wellenough to write poems askingAllah to cure his hemorrhoids.One example,quoted in the Cairo paper AiAkhbar, says: "May Allahcure you Carter, because youare a genuine and candidman ," and "this illnessshouldhave been inflictedonan unjustleader rather thanon you, oh Carter:'Carter has withdrawn hisnominationofNorvalMorristo head the Law EnforcementAssistance Administration,thanks in part to thevociferous oppositionoftheNational Rifle Associationand assorted bluenoses.Morris, dean of the Universityof Chicago Law School,enraged these people withhis support for gun controland decriminalizing' victimlesscrimes. LibertarianReview was not enraged,however; the sainted SeniorEditor hailed the nominationin an LR editorial lastOctober, considering Morris'slibertarian views on potof more moment than hisstatist views on pistols. Accordingto Charles Babcockof the Washington Post,however, Morris recanted athis Senate confirmationhearings; calling his ownbeliefs "utopian'; "stupidoversimplification" and "ineptoverstatement'~andsuggesting that if he wereconfirmed he might impose"a moratorium on thegreater spread ofmy views:'Except, it would seem, hisviews on"domesticdisarmament';which he blandly dismissedas applying only tohandguns. The spectacle ofMorris standing firm on gunconfiscation while caving inon victimless crimes is somethingfor all of us to take toour hearts, against the nexttime we are tempted to embracesome turkey as"almost a libertarian:'The NewYork metropolitanarea, where they havemoregun controlsthan NorvalMorris ever dreamed of,also had the second highestmurder rate in the country in1977, according to new datareleased by the Federal Bureauof Investigation. NewYork's murderrateofl?1perhundred thousand was surpassedonly by Houston's 18per hundred thousand. Miami,where so-called "SaturdayNight Specials" arebanned and one must pass awritten examination to owna handgun is tied for thirdplace with the Los Angeles­Long Beach area, wherethere are no gun controls tospeak of. Atlanta, Georgia,which had the country'shighest murder rate in 1974,dropped to tenth place in1977. Did Atlanta pass a newgun law? Indeed it. did; theAtlanta police are now requiredto issue any lawabidingadult resident a per-THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

mit to carry a concealedweapon, on request.The Ohio chapter of theAmerican Civil LibertiesUnion, which is campaigningagainstthe death penalty,recently held a fund-raisingdinner-ofbread and water.According to the OhioACLU's executive director,this was meant to show that"even the alternative to thedeath penalty-life imprisonment-isa harsh,somber and serious punishment."For five dollars,dinersgotharshwhitebread;somber rye and seriou~whole wheat cost $10 and$15; and for $25, hard-coremasochists were punishedwith toast and Perrier water.It is now legal to own around toilet seat in Connecticut,which had outlawedthem in 1939 "because;'saysthe San Francisco Chronicle,"of a mistaken belief thatvenereal disease could betransmitted via round toiletseats:'Anyone caught with around seat, even in his ownbathroom, could be fined upto $100.frontiers of Racial JusticeDept.: Dearborn,Michigan,has a large Arabic-speakingpopulation, many of whomare poor. So many, in fact,thatthe city is petitioningthefederal government to reclassifyArabs from "Caucasian"to a "special designation:'"This;' says the WashingtonPost, "would helpthem receive more federalaid:'Just before he was scheduledto go on trial for murderinga narcotics dealer inthe South Bronx,JaimeVila,called Teenager by hisfriends, picked up the NewYork Times to see himselfdescribedas the head of a $30million-a-year heroin dealingenterprise and generallyan unpleasantperson,in partofwhatpromised to be a sixpartseries ofarticles. NaturallyMr. Vila's lawyer asked aNew York Supreme Courtjustice to barthe Times frompublishing the rest of theseries until his client's trialwasover. Buttherequestwasdenied. "You don'tmess withthe press in· advance of trialunless you are an extremist;'saidJustice DonaldZimmerman."The New York Timesis within its constitutionalright to dump on Mr. Vilabefore his trial." OliverWendell Holmes, eat yourheart out.From the classified ads sectionof Seven Days comes apitch for Andrew Ant theAnarchist; "a beautifully illustratedradical children'sbook.... Follow the adven...tures of Andrew Ant as hestruggles fot socialism:' Notquite the Termite Left thatenrages Edith Efron so; butconfusing the Hymenopterawith the Isoptera is a typicalbit ofcountercultural sleaze.The Consumer ProductSafety Commission did notpublish a list of "hazardoustoys" this Christmas, to thePavlovian indignation oftheliberal Americans for DemocraticAction. "The CPSC isshirking its duties again;'ranted an ADA spokesperson.''Anyparentor any childcangointoa toystoreandseethat there are unsafe toys:'Run your car on money?Soon you may be able to dojust that,thanks to researchconducted by-appropriatelyenough-the UnitedStates Army. The US ArmyResearch and DevelopmentCommand in Notick, Massachusettshas developed anew strain of fungus thatconverts the cellulose inpapermoney(orfood stampsfor that matter) to sugar,which is then fermented intoalcohol for use as a gasolineJames Earl Carterbelovedof Allah?substitute. If the alcohol ismixed with gasoline in aratio ofone to nine,"the savingscould be enormous;' byone estimate. That estimate,I hasten to add, assumes oneuses billsthathavebeenwithdrawnfrom circulation (orsimilar sources) at a cost ofabout $5 per ton ofcellulosewaste. Forthetimebeing, onecan still get better fuel economybybuyinggaswithone'smoney instead of turning itinto alcohol; yet who knowswhattomorrow, and OPEC,and the printmasters of theFederal Reserve may bring?By now it's no news thatSAVAK, the Iranian secretpolice, tortures Iranian dissidents.But you may havemissed a little item in theNew York Times (January 7,1979) in which the CI.Nsformer chief Iran analyst,Mr. JesseJ. Leaf, reveals thatnot only did the CIA help setup SAVAK in the 1950s, but"a senior CIA Official wasinvolved in instructing officialsin the SAVAK ontorturetechniques;' based on Germanmethods "from WorldWar II:' And the CIA wasquite aware of how its Iranianpupils were putting theireducationintopractice: "I doremember seeing and beingtoldofpeoplewhowerethereseeing the rooms and beingtold of torture;' says Leaf.'~d I know that the torturerooms were toured and itwas all paid for by the USA:'Your tax dollars at work. D 11FEBRUARY 1979

THEMEDIA"Reading,Writing andReefer"-.Ignorance,innuendo andintoleranceHENRY LOUISACCORDING TOnationallysyndicatedcolumnistJohn Lofton,the recent NBCdocumentary,"Reading,Writing andReefer'; which airedonDecember10, hasproved to be one ofthe network's all timemost popular programs.NBChasbeendeluged with - requestsfordubsofthehour-long programon film or videotape-presumablyfor use in"stirringupthe animals" at localanti-marijuanameetings.It should bepretty effective forsuch purposes: thenetworksays it's alsoreceived letters fromyoung pot smokerswho were made tounderstand the true12 dangers of their viceTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEWbywatching"Reading,Writingand Reefer" and whohave since quit.Lofton himself, ever onthe alert for merrymakerswho have somehow goneunpunished, has been doingwhatever he can to spreadthe word. And, in combinationwith NBC and the network'snumerousotherapologistsand yes men in themedia, he seems to have succeededin convincing theAmerican people that theprincipal issues raised by"Reading, Writing and Reefer"are the social andmedicaldangers of marijuana useand the possible consequencesof the present drifttoward legalization. In factthere was only one issueraised by NBC's compendiumof ignorance, innuendoand over-simplification:the issue of bigotry, the bigotryofthose who do not usemarijuana, when they findthemselves confronted bythose who do.Thatthis is the single issueactually and clearly presentedby the NBC documentarybecomes more obviouswhen one performs asimple experiment. Considerthe following exchange,quoted from Act I of"Reading,Writing and Reefer":Edwin Newman: Lisa is fifteennow, but she has been smokingmarijuana for a long time.Q. When did you start smokingregularly?A. In the 7th grade.Q. How much did you smoke?A. About four or five joints aday.Q. How long have you beensmoking four or five joints aday?A. Three years.Q. What effect did it have onyou?A. I liked the high.Now consider the samepassage, slightly rewordedto accord better with a differentset ofdrug prejudices:Edwin Newman: Lisa is fifteennow, but she has been drinkingcoffee for a long time.Q. When did you start drinkingcoffee regularly?A. In the 7th grade.Q. How much did you drink?A.Aboutfourorfivecupsada~Q. How long have you beendrinking four orfive cups a day?A. Three years.Q. What effect did it have onyou?A. I felt more energetic.Itseems reasonably safe toconjecture that no one todaywould be shocked or scandalizedbythis reworkedversionof the passage from"Reading, Writing and Reefer';but they appear to havebeen outraged by the originalversion. Why? Both marijuanaandcoffee are psychoactivedrugs. Both have beencalled "dangerous" and havebeen blamed for variousmedical and social problems.Both have been proscribedby law. Both havebeen adopted as drug-ofchoiceby youthful radicals,and bothhave therefore beenassociated in the popularmindwith the rebellious, bohemianlifestyle of suchyoung people.The only difference is,really, that so much time haspassed-more than a hundredyears-since the daywhen coffee was popularlyregarded with the horrornow reserved for marijuana,that the associations havedied. The average Americanregards his morning cup(s)ofcoffee, not as a "fix'; notasan administration of a psychoactivedrug withoutwhich he finds it difficult orimpossible to perform optimally,but as a pretty muchharmless beveragewhich hasthe desirable effect of "pickinghim up': Thepoint is, it ispossible to look at the dailyuse ofmarijuana in the sameway. Thosefour orfive jointsa day are only "cigarettebreaks" which have the desirableeffect of "mellowingyou out"-of making it easierto deal affably with frustrations,irritants, and problemsofconcentration.Is this a reasonable way oflooking at daily dopesmoking?There can belittle doubtthat millions cf Americansdoin fact lookatitin justthatway. The r\1nks of lawyers,doctors, prdfessors, journalists,advertising and publicrelations professionals-ofyoungprofessionalsgenerallybetween the ages of25 and40-arenowriddledwith attractive,ambitious, sociallygraceful, talented, creative,upwardly mobile peoplewho smoke marijuana everyday in the same way and forthe same reasons that manyoftheir colleagues smoke tobaccoand drink coffee. Butare their habits really analogous?Or is marijuanasmoking, as NBC portraysit: moredangerouseven thanalcohol, much less somethingas tame as coffee?Well, consider NBC's portrayalof marijuana in moredetail: according to "Reading,Writing and Reefer';marijuana is an especiallydangerous drug for four distinctreasons. First, it leadsusers into what used to becalled the "amotivationalsyndrome'~ Where schoolkids are concerned, thismeans skipping school, nolonger bothering to pay attentionin class, letting one'sgrades fall off, ignoringone'shomework assignments,and,in thecurrentyouthvernacular,becoming "burnedout":Edwin Newman: The youngmanwe're talkingto spends alotof time just sitting and listeningto music. Keith is sixteen. He'sbeen a daily marijuana user formore than a year. Now hisfriends call him "burned out."Q. Haveyou everdone anythingwhen you were really stonedthat you were really proud of?You know, puta biketogetheroranything like that, or is it mostlyjust sittingwhenyou are stoned?A. Well, I may have done it but I

don't really remember it, youknow. Just nothing that is reallyimportant. When I am stoned Ijust like sitting back and justlistening to music, mostly. Thatis what I like doing when 1 amhigh.Q. But ifyou stay stonedmostofthe time that means that is whatyou do most of the time.A. Yes.It is illuminating to reflecton the value judgementswhich have been smuggledinto this discussion of theamotivational syndromeand left carefully unquestioned:it is worthwhile toattend school, make goodgrades, do homework, putbicycles together; itis a wasteof time to listen to music.Needless to say, this set ofvalue judgements is wideopen to criticism. Why is itworthwhile to spend one'sdays as an inmateofanarmedprison camp, memorizingand regurgitating irrelevantddit.a like the dates ofMillardFil~lJ.ore'sterm in office, andpay g extortion to themem s of teenage gangsfor th'vilege of using therestroo stening to musicwoul a more reasonable,which tospend one's Imostany sensible se rds.But the questljudgements aside;the kind of evidemarshals for its rejuveof the amotivationaldrome: spot interviews wita handful of school kids.They might have turned insteadto the most thoroughof the various controlledstudies of long-term chronicmarijuana use, Vera Rubinand Lambros Comitas'sGanja in] arnZlic(J;.I~II. .111;..;.;.;.;.;....sponsored by the Center orStudies of Narcotic andDrug Abuse and the NationalInstitute of MentalHealth, and was publishedin book form by AnchorPress in 1976. Rubin andComitas studied a group ofworking class Jamaicanswho had been daily users ofthe herb since childhood.Some of them had begunsmoking at the age of eight;all had begun smoking beforetheir twentieth birthdays.Rubin and Comitasconcluded thatThe concern ofmanyin the tJnitedStates that marihuana createsan "amotivational syndrome"and a "reduction of thework drive" is not borne out bythe life histories of Jamaic~pworking-class subjects or by~JJjectivemeasurements, whiG n­dieate that acute effects m alterthe rate and organizat ofmovement and the expe ureofenergy during work, btll~hatheavy use of ganja does lilt diminishwork drive or th orkethic.The sloppywhich went into "ReWriting and Reefer',which led to the omissisuch findings as the oncited, extends also to thond reason NBC has £for believing marijuanta dangerous drug: it al1y causes cancer. "young people alreadyNewman intones, "thtar in tobacco smoktains carcinogens whiccause cancer. But rnanot know that researcshown even more cagens in the tar fromjuana smoke." Th~search" to which Nerefers is that of Dr. DTashkin of UCLA, whocording to Dr. Eugene S{eld, writing in the J8, 1979 issue ofthe·...co Bay Guardian,does sothat tobalarge aitance.'n, 0take 112 cigarettes a weekproduce the same large airwaychanges as five joints a week.But even this theoretical comparisoninvolves only two ofmany lung functions studied.Tashkin never meant to implythat marijuana was 21 timesworse for the lungs than tobacco,only that it did somethingthattobacco didn't. He told me,"I kind of regret having agreed[with NBC] to thatkind ofcomparison.I only referred to airwayresistance."And it isn't only Dr. Tashkinwho balks atcalling marijuanamore carcinogenicthan tobacco. Dr. FrankRaucher of the AmericanCancer Society says his organizationis unconvincedthat marijuana causes cancer,but he believes that evenifit does, the risk is far lowerthan for tobacco smokersandonly one in a thousandtobacco smokers contractsthe disease. The AmericanMedical Association has refusedto take a position at allon the claim that marijuanais carcinogenic, urging increasedresearch to find outfor sure.But taking the time to findoutfor suredoesn'tmakeTVdocumentaries sensational.And if they aren't sensational,they don't make out wellin the ratings. Perhaps this iswhy NBC decided not onlyto grossly oversimplify the{.acts about marijuana andtancer, but also to rely enirelyonunproved (andprobplyunprovable) assertionspresenting its third andurth reasons for regardingarijuana as "dangerous'~eason number three is thatarijuana makes forerous driving. "Tests atouthern Californiearch Institute havewmanannouly, "that mar"impairs ation, cqtion tiskillcompment produced by alcohol?But there's no time to dwellon such questions, becausealreadythe assertions are flyingthick and fast."It is a major source ofdeath, of injury, of propertyloss in the countryright now,because ofdrivers stoned onmarijuana;' says Dr. RobertDuPont, former head of theNational Institue for DrugAbuse. "Let me make itdear;' pleads politician-onthe-makeKeith Stroup, whois destined soon to leave theNational Organization forthe Reform of MarijuanaLaws, "that the research isnow convincing, that youshould notsmoke marijuanaand drive an automobile,period:'Why does none of thesegentlemen do the obviousand cite statistics showingthe number of accidents inwhich marijuana was a causativefactor? Why don't theypresent the views ofthe autoinsurance industry, whichbases its rates on facts, notassertions, butwhich hasnotinstituted higher premiumsfor dopesmokers as it has foralcohol drinkers? Could itbe, possibly, that the factsare not as these gentlemenclaim?One certainly suspects asmuch ofthe fourth and finaland most sensational of/allNBC's reasons· for h~iJlngand fearing marijuanitP~It isentirely possible;' Dr.Sidney Cohen A, theJohn Kenne raith ofdrug~ib ists, "thatYOU;ofsmoke lotslong peesustain somepairment which isompletely reversible. Ity go on for months andthere is a suspicion some ofitmay be permanent so thatthey are not as keen, as sharpas they were previously:' Butwhere is the evidence for thispossibility, this suspicion?"Some of them will stop, Iwould hope, and recoup;'says Dr. Cohen."Otherswhocontinuetouse this goodmaandcontinue overfs?rnay be so impairedthat they will neverfunction at their best level ofeffectiveness."Does it really need. to besaid? This isn't evidence. Itisunsupported assertion-justas it was when ThomasEdison told the Americanpeople in 1914 that cigarettesmoking "has a violent ac-(continued on page 18)13FEBRUARY 1979

desired level. Thus, neither disappeared, and in their placesprimitivistsnorspacecultists will be animals which will assistshould be given a forum man in his labors-or even dowithin the Libertarian Party his work for him. An antibeaverwill see to the fishing; anto promote and impose theiranti-whale will move sailingown favorite level ofships in a calm; an anti-hippo-technology.To put it succinctly: thegoal oflibertarianism is freedom,period. No more andno less. Anything less is a betrayal;but anything more isequally a betrayal of liberty,because it implies imposingour own goals on others. Tobe a libertarian must meanthat one upholds liberty asthe highest political endnotnecessarily one's highestpersonal end. To confuse theissue, to mixin anysortofvision,technocratic orfuturisticoranyother,with politics,is to abandon liberty as thathighest political goal, and atthe very least to destroy thevery meaning of a politicalmovement or organization.Oddly enough, space andthe space program-whichthe great revisionist historianHarryElmerBarnesaptlytermed the "moondoggle"and "astrobaloney'!-is preciselytheareawherethegovernmenthas exercised totaldomination. Such futuristheroes of our "libertarian"space cultists as Dr. GerardK. O'Neill are governmentfinancedscientists and researcherswhose projected"space colonies" will not bethe "free space colonies" ofour space-cultists' dreams,but projects totally planned ~and operated by the federal "True, I talk of dreams,government. Yet instead of Which are the children of an idle brain,engaging in .sober critiques Begot of nothing but vain fantasy:'of the governmental spaceprogram, our space cadetsembrace these state futuristsas virtually their own.Let us recall how the greatlibertarianLudwigvonMisesheaped well-deserved scornon the "futurist" fantasies ofprevious millennial movements.Mises wrote in hisgreat work Socialism that:Socialist writers depict thesocialist community as a land ofheart's desire. Fourier's sicklyfantasies go farthest in this direction.In Fourier's state ofthe futureall harmful beasts will havepotamus will tow the riverboats. Instead of the lion therewill be an anti-lion, a steed ofwonderful swiftness, uponwhose back the rider will sit ascomfortably as in a well-sprungcarriage ... Godwin eventhought that men might be immortalafter property had beenabolished. Kautsky tells us thatunder the socialist society "anew type of man will arise ... asuperman ... an exalted man."Trotsky provides even moredetailed information [as befits a"futurist"!]: "Man will becomeincomparably stronger, wiser,finer. His voice more harmonious,his movements morerhythmical, his voice moremusical. The human averagewill rise to.the level of an Aristotle,a Goethe, a Marx. Above-Shakespeare,Romeo and Julietthese other heights, new peakswill arise."The English free-marketeconomist P.T. Bauer pointsout in his work EconomicAnalysisand Policy in UnderdevelopedCountries that:. . . the demand for these forecastsoften stems from deepseatedpsychological motives,and it is frequently unrelated tothe accuracy of the forecasts. Agreat upsurge ofinterest in forecastingis usually evidence of anunhealthy panacea. I believealso that the great increase in thedemand for these forecasts evenby educated people, and thegreatprestigeoftheirpurveyors,are symptoms and harbingers ofvery deep-seated social and politicaltransformations. A suddenresurgence in the activities andprestige of oracles and soothsayersin the Roman Empire inthe second and third centuriestestified to the decline in criticaloutlook and to the emergence ofcredulity, which prepared theway both for the acceptance ofanew faith from the East and forthe collapseoforder,civilization,and even material well-being.Bauercontinueswith anilluminatingpassage aboutthis epoch from the historianW.E. Lecky: "The oraclesthat had been silenced wereheard again; the astrologersswarmed in every city; thephilosophersweresurroundwithan atmosphere of legend;the Pythagorean schoolhad raised credulity into asystem. On all sides, and to adegree unparalelled in history,we find men ...thirsting for belief, passionatelyand restlessly seekinga new faith:'So therewe have it: two irreconcilablegroups withinthe Libertarian Party: theRealists and the Necromancers,the "Earthlings" andthe Space Cadets. Rightnow, the convention programseems safe, but with somuch at stake we must tremblefor the future. So let thiscanker from withinthepartybe gone. Let the fantasts flyoffto the outer space oftheirdreams. We shall be glad togive them all of outer space,if they will only let us havethe earth.But if they lack the fullcourage oftheir convictions,let them at least expend theirenergies at their science fictionandfuturistconventionstryingto influence theirdenizensto become libertarians.It won't matter much, but itcertainly won't hurt. Letthem only, for liberty's sake,stop cripplingthefinest hopefor real freedom in the realworld that we have seen ingenerations. Let this incubusbegone.DFEBRUARY 197915

MILTON MUELLERTHE JANUARY13-15 meeting oftheLibertarian PartyNationalCommitteein Las Vegas had everythinggoing for it:the first LP electionvictory to savor; theEd Clark victory inCalifornia to buildon; plans to be laidfor the future, includingthe biggestLP National Conventionever, the1979 presidentialnominating conventionin Los Angeles;and, amid politickingand rumormongering,the firstdeclared candidatebeginning the horseracefor the LP presidentialnomination.That in the midstof all this, the actualproceedings of theNationalCommitteestill managed to bedull, inconsequentialand often silly is nomean achievement.It was hard to believe,sometimes,that this National16 Committeewasreal-THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEWMENTly the leadership of asnowballing movement. Onegot the impression that perhapsmany members of thiscommittee are artifacts ofanolder, more cultish libertarianmovement, artifacts containingthe worst-not thebest-residue of Ayn Rand,psychobabble and the dumbright.These artifacts, however,happen to be sitting ontop of a future volcano; farfrom guiding or controllingthis volcano, they are morelikely to be blown awaywhen it erupts.More on the committeeproceedings later. Therewere plenty of interestingand significant events goingon outside the committeechambers to keep me busy.For one, the weekend inLas Vegas's Showboat Hotelturned out to be a bigcoming-out party for BillHunscher, the only LPpresidential hopeful to declareyet. Who will be chosenas the 1980 LP presidentialcandidate is a question ofgreat importance. The momentumgenerated by theClark campaign and by DickRandolph's election needs tobe maintained, and the LPshould strive to do nationwidewhat Clark did in California.Furthermore, the LPnominee will be more thanjust a candidate. Ultimately,ifthenecessary breakthroughis made, the 1980 nomineewill become an almost permanentrepresentative oftheLP and libertarianism. A lotof influence over the directionofthe Party will fall intohis or her hands.The Showboat Hotel wasplastered with "Bill Hunscherfor President" signs,putup by Michael Emerling,Hunscher's paid campaignmanager. A steady stream ofparty figures beat a path toHunscher's top-floor suite,shepherded by the fasttalking,glad-handing Emerling._H unscher is a deepvoiced,strongly featuredman. Ifhe did not favor bowties and 3-piece, pinstripedsuits, one might expecttoencounterhim backpacking inthe Rocky Mountainwilderness.His background isstrongly Objectivist, thoughhe shows none ofthe intoleranceand cultishness thatcharacterize many of likebackground. He read AtlasShrugged during his armystint in Germany, then faithfullyattended Rand's FordHall Forum lectures inBoston during the late sixties.He contributed to theHospers campaign in 1972,but did not become fully activein the libertarian movementuntil 1975, when hewas simultaneously electedto the State RepublicanCommittee and the chair ofthe New Hampshire LP. "Iwas so turned off by the RepublicanCommittee meetings;'he says, "I decided todevote all my politicaleffortsto the LP:'The New Hampshire LPflourished under his guidanceand financial contributions.During his 1978campaign as a Libertarianfor the State Legislature, hewas approached by RogerMacBride as a possible VPcandidate. When MacBridedropped out due to theopposition his candidacyraised, Hunscher decidedthe field was open. WithMacBride's blessing he declared.(MacBride sent a letterto party leaders promotingHunscher and blaminghis own refusal to run onEd Crane's opposition.However, my own sourcesindicate that a number ofpartyleaders were unexcitedby the prospects of anotherMacBride candidacy, andmany who were snubbed orneglected by MacBride in1976 opposed him.)When 1first heardofHunscher'scandidacy, my immediateconcern was withwhether his campaign wasdesigned to appeal to a particularfaction within themovement. Although such acandidate would probablylose, a great deal of damagecould be wrought by someonewho, for example, tookup the battle cry of EdithEfron and the disgruntledconservative "libertarians"who fear the emergence of aradical movement. Happily,though, Hunscher's candidacyhas nothing to do withthis or any other factionalsplit. Hunscheris runningonhis own merits, and, judgingfrom the many and variouslibertarians who traipsed tohis hotel room in Las Vegas,he wants to be the nomineeofthe entireparty. Heis scrupulouslyrefusing to grab' aquick constituency by appealingto one faction oranother.How good a presidentialcandidate would Hunschermake? I interviewed him forsome time on the issues. Itbecame quickly apparentandHunscher is the first toadmit it-that he has a lot tolearn about being a candidateand aboutthe issues. Hestates that if nominated hewould "marshall all our resources"andlearn from thescholars and intellectuals inthe movement, so that hecould address concrete issuesin an informed, factualmanner.With the possibility of aReagan candidacy, not tomention recent events inIran, China, the Middle Eastand Africa, foreign policy is

likely to be a crucial issue in1980. Hunscher is clearlynon-interventionist, thoughthere are large gaps in hisknowledge of foreign policyissues. But his military servicein Germany has led himto extensive knowledge ofthe issues surrounding NA­TO and Western Europe.This is a tough issue for mostWhile Hunscher and hismanagers express a willingnesstolearn,thegeneral perceptionis that there needs tobe an intellectual heavyweightdirectly involved inthe operation. But there is noWalter Grinder, no MurrayRothbard, noteven a RobertPoole onthe Hunscherteam.This issue is important. Libmeeting,though. While hesaid it was possible he wouldseek the nomination, he isstill assessing the situation.The uncertainty and potentialfor new developmentsshould warn libertariansagainst making anypremature commitments.Unlike the major parties,which can buy delegatestaxes, a bill to stop his fellowlegislators from receiving asalary increase, a tax creditand voucher scheme for education,and (my personalfavorite) a resolution callingupon Alaskans to disobey afederal law that removedlarge chunks of land fromprivate ownership. Randolph'sperformance will be1980 LP Presidential prospects Bill Hunscher. . .people, but Hunscher isfirmly convinced that wecouldwithdrawtroops there.Hunscher's success as anentrepreneur in the highlycompetitive electronics andcomputer technology markethas led him to a firmgrasp of free-market issues,though he does not handleeasily the sweeping, theoreticalissues ofpoliticalcapitalismvs. market capitalism,the relation between inflationand unemployment,and so on.AH in all, given the manypossibilities for divisiveand/or shaky LP presidentialaspirants, the Hunschercandidacy thus far comes offas serious andconscientious.I spent some time solicitingthe opinions ofvarious partyleaders about Hunscher.One central concern arose:Hunscher's staff, and thepeople who "have his ear'~ertarians need to stake outtheir own issue territory in1980; and more-muchmore-than free market andcivil liberties jingoism isneeded to do so. Ittakescreativepolitical thinking and alot of facts to back up ouranalysis. Whether Hunschercan meet this challenge remainsto be seen; there isnothing coming out of hiscampaign so far suggestiveofa fresh, creative approachto the issues.It is hard to imagine Hunscherwalkingtothenominationwithoutanyopposition.The LP is too diverse, andHunscher himself says hewelcomes another contender-sincerely,I think. SinceMacBride has dropped out,however, the only possiblecontender being mentionedis Ed Clark of California.Clark refused to commithimself at the Las Vegas. . . and Ed Clark.withpatronage, an LP candidatefor the nomination hasto sweat it out until the finalballot. There are no primariesto win, and nothing for adelegate to gain by committingearly.TheLas Vegas meeting offeredthe National Committeeits first chance to hearDick Randolph, the onlyelected Libertarian state legislator.Randolph drew astanding ovation from thecrowdof65. He came acrossas a practical, nuts and boltsLibertarian elected official.He'snot a thundering radicalnor an electrifying leader.But he is a sprightly speakerfull of witty attacks on biggovernment. In his first fewmonths as a legislator he hassubmitted a rather impressivepackage of10 bills totheAlaska legislature. These include,amongothers, a bill toeliminate personal propertyan important factor in thepress's evaluation of Libertariansin the future.Ed Clark also spoke to theassembled party leaders, explaininghow he handled issuesand why he won the interestand respect of newspeople in California. In oneof the most thoughtful presentationsof the weekend,he proposed abolishing alltaxation of food, and outlinedhis plans for an initiativeto abolish the Californiasales tax.The National Committeeofthe LP, whose meetingwasostensibly the reason for thiswhole gathering, met Saturdayand Sunday. While morethan 20 bodies sat aroundthe table during the proceedings,the committee, as far asI can determine, has onecreative member: Ed Crane.The proceedings ofthe Natcomcan best be represented17FEBRUARY 1979

18as a large puddle ofmush inwhich every once in a greatwhile, the sharp contours ofa concrete program rose tothe surface. Look closely atthe program before it sinksback down-9 times out of10 it will bear the signatureofEd Crane.Right now, the LPisworkingon two major projects.One is the 1979 NationalConvention. As head of theconvention committee,Crane submitted a detailedreport outlining a proposedtheme, structure, and potentialspeakers. Crane wantsthe theme to be "Toward aThree-Party System", andthe convention to devote itself·to concrete political issues.The second major LPprojectis the effortbythe"50in 80" committee, headed byEd Crane and Jim Burns ofNevada, to achieve Ballotstatus inall fifty states in the1980 election.Another important itemof business was the electionof at-large. members to the1979 platform committee.Ed Crane ran for chair ofthecommittee. The Platform isunlikely to change verymuch in 1979;all butthreeofthe people elected to thecommittee were on it lasttime. Evers and Rothbard,Inc. were resoundingly elected;also elected were L. NeilSmith of Colorado, TomPalmer of Maryland, DavidTheroux of California, andRich Kenney of Washington-all repeats from 1977.The newcomers are JuleHerbert, LP chair of Alabama;Dallas Cooley of theLibertarian Health Association;and Sheldon Richmanof the Delaware LP. JoanKennedy Taylor, an LR associateeditor and 1977. platformcommittee veteran,was elected over Crane tochair the committee.The long and somewhatrancorous haggling over theconvention plans sharply revealedthe weaknesses andstrengths (mostly weaknesses)ofthe present NationalCommittee. A loosely organizedfaction opposed toCrane's plans met Saturdaynight to coalesce.At first, it appeared thedissidents wanted the LosAngeles National Conventionto host the presentationof a $5,000 "PrometheusAward'~ The award wouldbe granted to the science fictionwriter who best projecteda libertarian view of thefuture. This idea arose outofthe concern that the LibertarianParty should offermore than negative attackson state power; a positivevision of the future, the dissidentsthought, is needed.Good old pragmatic ChrisHocker, LP National·director,expressed concern overwhether a political partyconvention was the properplace for science fictionawards. Without ever resolvingthis issue, the debateshifted to whether the conventionshould include apanel onfuturism,spacecolonization,andtechnologicalprogress. While Bill Everssneered atthe "space cadets':and the space cadets hailedscience fiction as the saviorof society, nobody botheredto propose or oppose anyspecific speaker or topic. Yetthe debate soon becameevenmore empty and vague: thefuturist faction decided thatscience fiction and spacetravel were notthe real issue.What was important, thecommittee was told, wasthat libertarians should havea positive, future-orientedvision to attract its following.The theme of the con~vention should not be anythingso bureaucratic andmundane as a "3-Party System".Fine-any counterproposals? "Close Encountersofthe Third Party" maybe?But no suggestions weremade. This did not stop thedebate from raging for another45 minutes.Beneath the surface ofthisnonsense lies a serious divisionin the LP, believe it ornot. The source and motivationof these factions andwhat they bode for the future,willbe discussed in a futuremovement column. D"Reading, Writingand Reefer"(continued from page 13)tion in thenerve centers, producingpermanent and uncontrollabledegeneration ofthe cells of the brain;'~justas it was when Dr. T. D.Crothers of the New YorkSchool of Clinical Medicinereported in 1902 that coffeeaddiction leads to "delusionalstates ofa grandiose character...suspicions ofwrong and injustice fromothers; also extravagant credulityand skepticism?' Dr.Crothers went on to· assertthat "often coffee drinkers,finding the drug to be unpleasant,turn to other narcotics,.ofwhich opium andalcohol are most common:'Dr. Crothers said what hesaid about coffee, andThomasEdison saidwhathesaid about cigarettes, for thesame reason that EdwinNewman and his clatch of"experts" say what they sayabout marijuana-becausethe facts do not justify theirstrong personal aversion tothe drug. And therefore, ifthey are to see their personalprejudice elevated to the statusof a cultural norm (or,failing that, a law), theymust use their powers of assertionto the fullest, andhope that at least certain oftheir Big Lies will be widelybelieved.Thatthereis, in fact, ahiddenlegislative agenda behind"Reading, Writing andReefer" is strongly suggestedby the portion of the programin which the issues oflegalization and "decriminalization"are discussed. "Doyou think;' Newman asksDr. Robert Dupont, "thatthere is a connection betweenthe growing acceptanceof decriminalization,and the number of youngmarijuana users?""I do,"Dr. Dupontreplies,"and I think it is tragic?'Yet the young marijuanasmokers interviewed duringtheprogram,theyoung marijuanasmokers whogave thedocumentary one of its fewcontact points with the realworld as it exists outside thealready-made-up minds ofNBC's "experts"-theseyoung marijuana smokersdid not become involvedwith the drug because of decriminalization.They areresidents of Florida andGeorgia, which have amongthe most draconian pot lawsin the United States.But the facts, as we haveseen, don't matter. Whatmattersis that the prejudice,the preconceived idea ofmarijuana, be got across tothe public with as muchsalesmanship as possible.Consider Newman's finalplea to the viewing audience.But consider it as it shouldbe considered-slightly rewordedso that its fundamentalbigotry shinesthrough.Edwin Newman: What shouldour society do about a twelveyear old who drinks coffee daily?Beforewe can do anythingwemust recognize that Brian andhundreds ofthousands like himare a new and special problem.Up to now, our national debatehas concerned itself mainlywith the occasional use ofcoffeeby adults. That debate is notlikely to end soon. But our childrencannot wait. We have totell them something now.Admittedly there are stillsome important things that wedon't know about the long termeffects of chronic coffee drinkingon the human body, especiallyon children. But in themeantime our children are notbeing given the knowledge thatis available now. They've notbeen told thatthe coffee they aredrinking is ten times as potentasthe stuff that college studentswere using five years ago.They've not been told about thecancer causing elements in coffee.Many of them don't evenrealize that coffee makes it dangerousto drive a car. Itis notthechildren's fault that they don'tknow these things. It is the faultof our government, of ourschools, of all of us. ~Henry Louis writes and producesradio documentaries forPublic Affairs Broadcast Group.THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

---IBERTY'SERITAGEAuberonHerbert,voluntaryistERIC MACKFROM THE EARly1880s until hisdeath in 1906,Auberon WilliamEdward MolyneuxHerbert was thehardcore libertarianfigure in British intellectualand politicallife. While thiscountry had bothBenjaminTucker andLysander Spoonerduring this period,Britain had onlyAuberon Herbert.Of course, Britainwas also the homeof Herbert Spencer,whom Auberon Herbertsaw as the fountainheadof libertarianideas. But it wasprincipally Herberthimself who representedthe most consistently,radically,anti-State, profreedompositionduring these years.Herbert was bornin 1838, the youngestson of the thirdEarl of Carnarvon. In family,education (at Eton andOxford), military service(with the seventh Hussars inIndia), and marriage, theHon. Auberon Herbert wasa well-placed member oftheBritish ruling class. TheHerberts were Tories, andAuberon Herbert's oldestbrother eventually served ina succession ofConservativecabinets. HerberthimselforganizedConservative debatingsocieties at Oxford, andin his first try for a seat in theHouse ofCommons in 1868he stood as a Conservative.But by thelate1860s andearly1870s Herbert came to seehimselfas a radical liberal. In1870 he tried again for a seatin Commons-this time as aLiberal, but again unsuccessfully.Then finally, in1872, he won a by-electionand entered the House as aLiberal.During this period hismore radical activities includeddeclaring his republicanismin the House ofCommons, and stronglysupporting the formation ofan agricultural laborer'sunion. Healso, unfortunately,supported legislation forstate education. But he insisted,at least, that this educationbe strictly nonsectarian.Retrospectively thisstand is interesting becausein one of his first fully libertarianessays, "State Education:Help or Hindrance?"(1880) Herbert came tomaintain that for every goodargument against state religion-andthey were legion-there was a good parallelargument against state education.Still, as a final indicationthat during this earlierParliamentary period Herberthadnotyetarrived athisconsistent libertarianism,we may note his sponsorshipofsomething called the WildBird's Protection Act.Herbert was, nevertheless,sufficiently troubled bythe character ofpolitical lifeand institutionsto decide notto stand for re-election in1874. It was at this time thathe met HerbertSpencer. Anddiscussion with and readingof Spencer lead him to theview thatthinking and acting for othershad always hindered, nothelped, the real progress; that allforms of compulsion deadenedthe living forces in a nation; thatevery evil violently stamped outstill persisted, almost always in aworse form, when driven out ofsight, and festered under thesurface.Indeed, this belief in theinefficacy of force, in itscounterproductive and antiprogressiveeffects, was perhapsthe most fundamentalandconstantelementin Herbert'sworldview. It was thisbelief which clearly waspresent, in more specificform, long before Herbert'sexplicit libertarianism. Thuswhen he wrote home fromIndia as early as 1860 to expresshis opposition to thecaste system, he added thatBritish attempts to eliminatethis system forcibly werelikely to "trample the evil in,not out." And writing fromAmerica during the CivilWar, he said,"I am very gladthat slavery is done awaywith, but I think the manneris very bad and wrong."While Herbert may have intendedhere to support theright of secession, it is likelyalso that he felt that evenslavery should not be forciblytrampledout-couldnotbe genuinely and lastinglydissolved by mere force. Indeed,so fundamental wasHerbert's opposition to theuse of force that, as we shallsee, his position sometimesthreatened to slip intopacifism.Herbert's anti-imperialismdeveloped during the 1870s.As early as1875he expressedconcern about Britain's involvementin the Suez project,and in 1878 he was oneofthe chief organizers oftheanti-Jingoism rallies at HydePark, counteracting the momentumtoward war withRussia. In the early 1880s heagain opposed British interventionin Egypt as the use ofnational power to guaranteethe results of particularspeculations. His antiimperialismalso led himto demand Irish selfdeterminationand, later, tooppose the Boer War.As early as 1877 Herberthad been disturbed by the"constant undertone ofcynicism"in the writings ofHerbertSpencer,andhe resolved,in contrast, to do full justiceto the principled moral casefor a free society. He refusedto follow Spencer in the latter'sgrowing intellectual accommodationto coercive institutions,especially taxation.And, in later years,Herbert always held himselfsomewhat distant from organizationssuch as the Libertyand Property DefenseLeague which he felt to be "alittle more warmly attachedto the fair sister Propertythan ... to the fair sister Liberty."In 1879, Herbert gavea series oftalks to the LiberalUnion of Nottingham expressinghis nowuncomprisinglyindividualist radicalism.And on the basis ofthose talks, he was deniedthe Liberal nomination forhis old Commons seat. Thisexperience must have solidifiedhis decision to battle primarilywith the pen.Herbert'sfirst majorworkwas a series ofessays collec- 19FEBRUARY 1979

20tively labeled '~PoliticianinTrouble About His Soul"which culminated in the segment,''APoliticianinSightofHaven:' While the earliersections dealt generally withthe moral unsavoriness ofparty politics, the last segmentoutlined Herbert'sHaven-a fully "voluntaryist"society in which therights to self-ownership, liberty,and property were fullyrecognized and in which,therefore, all compulsorytaxation was abolished. In1885 Herbert brought outhis most systematic work,The Right and Wrong ofCompulsion by the State.Here he presented a series ofarguments in defense of therights of self-ownership andfreedom from force and itsmoral equivalent, fraud.These arguments turned onthe special role thateach person'sjudgments about hishappiness must play in hisown life and moral wellbeing,andon the absurditiesinvolved in the contraryclaim that some people arethe natural owners, in wholeor in part, ofothers.Herbertfurther arguedforabsolute respect for theholdingswhich individuals acquiredthrough their laborwithout violating the rightsof other individuals. And heincluded an important defenseof freedom of contractin terms ofhis distinction between"direct"and"indirect"force. One partywas subjectto this misnamed "indirect"force when another partyinducedhim to~o somethingfor which the first partywould like greater payment.Herbert insisted that as longas the first party was not directlycoerced into the exchange,his rights were notviolated and, at least in hisown eyes, he had benefited.Only direct force could preventindirect force. And directforce would violaterights and leave some partiesworse off than they werefound. With respect to justifyingdefense, Herbert arguedthat one party's use of(direct) force againstanotherplaced the first party "outsidethe moral-relation" and"into the force-relation:' Onsuch an occasion the aggrievedparty may use forcefor the sake of selfpreservation.Such defensiveforce was, Herbert argued,ofthenatureofa usurpation,though it was. a "justifiedusurpation': This ambivalencetoward even defensiveforce persisted at least implicitlyin many ofHerbert'slater writings.One can get a sense oftheradicalismofHerbert'sworkby this rough list of goalsproposed in The Right andWrong ofCompulsion by theState: abolition of state enterprisesand state-fosteredmonopolies, abolition ofprofessionallicensing, abolitionofstate and compulsory,education, repeal oflaws requiringvaccination, repealof laws in violation of freedomof contract, repeal ofSunday blue laws, repeal oflaws suppressing brothelsand allowing the arrest ofprostitutes, abolitionofstateconstraints on marriage anddivorce, abolition of theHouse of Lords, eventual(with the death of Victoria)conversion from monarchy,self-determination for Ireland,independence for India"without any attempt at developingits civilization accordingto British ideas andthrough taxation imposedby British force;' withdrawalfrom entanglements inEgypt, and in general, "astrictly non-aggressive" foreignpolicy.In 1890 Herbert foundedthe weekly (later changed tomonthly) Free Life,"The Organof Voluntary Taxationand the Voluntary State';which he continued to publishuntil 1901. In his optimismHerbert saw State­Socialism as the last gasp inthe cause of aggressive forceand he called for "One FightMore-The Best and theLast" against this "meresurvival of barbarism, ...mere perpetuation ofslaveryunder new names againstwhich the reason and moralAuberon Herbertsense of the civilized worldhave to be called into rebellion:'Also, throughout the1890s Herbert engaged inpublished debates with suchnoted contemporary Socialistsas Belfort Bax,j.A. Hobsonand Grant Allen. Herbertembarked upon thepublication of Free Life despiteSpencer's concern thatHerbert's opposition to taxationwould bring his otherviews (the ones shared bySpencer) into disrepute.Spencer was wrong, however,if he thought that, forHerbert, taxation was justanother issue. Herbert'sstand on taxation was motivatedby more than his deepcommitmentto general principlesand consistency. Forone thing, he argued, compulsorytaxation cruciallymarked the difference betweenthe State-Socialist andthe true Individualist.I deny that A and Bcan go toC and force him to form a Stateand extract from him certainpayments and services in thename of such State; and I go onto maintain thatifyou actin thismanner, you at once justifyState-Socialism. Theonlydifferencebetween the tax-compellingIndividualist and the State­Socialist is that whilst they bothhave vested ownership ofC in Aand B, the tax-compelling Individualistproposes to use thepowers of ownership in a verylimited fashion, the Socialist in avery complete fashion.Herbert added, "I object tothe ownership in anyfashion:'For Herbert, the power tolevy taxes was the "stronghold"which must be "levelledto the ground:' For,"There can be no true conditionof rest in society, therecan be noperfectfriendlinessamongst men who differ inopinions, as long as eitheryou orI canuse ourneighborand his resources for the furtheranceof our ideas andagainst his own:' It is compulsorytaxation, he insisted,which generates the corruptand aggresstve game ofpolitics and which in its ultimateexpression,gives great andunduefacility forengaging a whole nation in war.If it were necessary to raise thesum required from those whoTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

individually agreed in the necessityof war, we should have thestrongest guarantee for the preservationof peace.... Compulsorytaxationmeans everywherethe persistent probability of awar made by the ambitions orpassions ofpoliticians.As one might expect, andas Spencer fearfully anticipated,Herbert's abolitionismand his continual attackon involuntary taxation ledto his being labelled an anarchist.This "charge" camefrom idiots, from informedadvocatesofState Socialism,from advocates of limited(but tax-funded) government,and from anarchists.In the last instance, BenjaminTucker always insistedthat, despite himself and tohis credit, Auberon Herbertwas a true anarchist. Uponhearing of Herbert's death,Tucker wrote, "AuberonHerbert is dead. He was atrue Anarchist in everythingbut name. How much better(and how much rarer) to bean Anarchist in everythingbutname thanto be anAnarchistin name only."Herbert's superb essay of1894, "The Ethics of Dynamite;'can be seen as a responseto the idiotic chargethat he was an anarchist ofthe terrorist sort. Here Herbertargued that as an enemyof government, he was thegreatest enemy ofdynamite.For "dynamite is not opposedto government; it is,on the contrary, governmentin its most intensified andconcentrated form?' Dynamiteis just the most recentdevelopment in the art ofgoverning people. Herberteven went so far as to suggesta special explanation for therevulsion that the defendersof the State have for the dynamiter.Deep down in their consciousnesslurks a dim perceptionof the truth, that betweenh~mand them exists an unrecognIzedblood-relationship, thatthe thing of which they havesuch a horror is something morethan a satire, an exaggeration acaricature ofthemselves, that:ifthe truth is to be fairly acknowledged,it is their very own child,boththeproductofandthereactionagainst the methods of"governing" men and womenwhich they have employed witl~so unsparing a hand.Important as it was forHerbert to repudiate any allegedassociation with thedynamiter, he insisted thatthe dynamiter's enemy wasthe primary source of hisevil. Ideologically, it was thejustification of the coerciveState, of force and domination,which provided thephilosophical basis for the?ynamiter. And, materially,It was the crushing "great officialmachines" of Statehoodwhich produced theimpassioned dynamiter.What ofthe "charge" thatHerbert was an anarchist ofwhat he himself labeled the"reasonable" sort? In thepassage directed against thetax-compelling "individualist"wehave alreadyseen thatHerbert believed individualsCOMINGNEXT MONTHTOl11 Hazlett onJerry BrownRalph Raico on Irving Howe'sLeon TrotskyJack Shafer on theMarket for Spiesshould be free to withholdsupportfrom any institution-even any institution designedto protect rights. YetHerbert insisted, against theinformed commentatorsthat he was not an anarchist~For he thought that all peoplein a given territorywouldfreely converge on a singleinstitution as their means ofprotecting their commonrights. Indeed, he thoughtthat since a single agencywould best protect rights,ea~h individual had "strongmInor moral reasons" forsupporting this commonVoluntary State. BenjaminTucker denied that such acommon agency would be agenuine State. But Herbertfor whom the admission ofdefensive force was alwaysthe crucial and controversialstep, maintainedthatTuckerhimself, and anyone who allowedthe defensive use offorce, was an advocate ofgovernment. In Herbert'seyes, Tucker and Spoonersimply advocated "scattered"or "fragmented" government.Crucially absent atthis point in the dispute wasa.ny well-developed conceptionofa competitive marketamong rights-protecting enterprises.Such a conceptionwould have explained whyand how the business ofrights protection would bestbe "fragmented?' And oftenthe Herbert-Tucker debateon anarchism slipped, withouteither party fully realizingit, over into a debateaboutthe basis for legitimateproperty rights. Here errorsflowing from Tucker's acceptanceofa labor theory ofvalue were matched by Herbert'stoo ready acceptanceof the legitimacy of currentland holdings.In the final year ofhis life,Herbertcomposedtwoofhisgreatest essays,"Mr. Spencerand the Great Machine" and'~ Plea for Voluntaryism."Both ofthese essays are studiesofpower,"thatevil, bitter,mocking thing . . . the curseand sorrow of the world"and of its degenerating effectson the individual andsociety. Echoing Spencer'sdistinction between the industrialand military modesof co-ordination, Herbertelaboratedonthe radical dif~ference between "the way ofpeace andco-operation" and"the way offorce and strife?'He focused on the inherentdynamic of political power,the ways in which the greatgame of power politics capturesits participantsno matterwhat their initial intentions.He argued that noman's integrity or moral orintellectual selfhood canwithstand his embrace ofthesoul-consuming machine.Even the individual whoappearsto win in his battle forpower, he argued, is theworse for it. For, "From themoment you possess power,you are but its slave, fastbound by its many tyrantnecessities?' And the growthof the great machine meansan end to progress. Forprogressis the workofdiverse individuals,of "a great numberof small changes andadaptations, and experiments... each carriedoutbythose who have strong beliefsand clear perceptions oftheir own?' And this true experimentationdisappearsunder "universal systems:'Against such systems Herbertchampionedalways andabove all else the selfgovernedand unique individual.We have as individuals to beabove every system in which wetake our place, not beneath it,not under its feet, and atits mercy;to use it, and not be used byit: and thatcan only be when wecease to be bubbles, cease toleave the direction of ourselvestothecrowd-whatevercrowditis-social, religious, or political-inwhich we so often allow ourbetter selves to be submerged.Eric Mack, professor of philosophyat Tulane University, haswritten extensively on philosophicalthemes related to libertarianism.He recently edited acollection of ten Auberon Herbertessays entitled The Rightand Wrong of Compulsion bvthe ~tate and Other. Essay;,published by Liberty Press.FEBRUARY 197921

OFEJEFF RIGGENBACHThe year is new; the decade is nearly spent.And commentators of every political andcultural persuasion are scrambling to characterize,even to pigeonhole the '70s. BenWattenberg of the conservative AmericanEnterprise Institute has rushed to informthe readers ofthe Washington Post, the LosAngeles Times, and his own bi-monthlymagazine, Public Opinion, that the '70s isbest characterized as a "great backlashagainst the sensibility of the 1960s'; as a"move to the right" by Americans opposedto the "eroding moral standards'; the monetaryinflation, and the international slipin status the United States has learned tolive with in the past decade.For Wattenberg, all these evils may belaid at the feet of "the sensibility of the1960s'; though he is careful never to be toointelligible about what exactly that sensibilitywas or exactly how it has led us toeroded moral standards, eroded money,and eroded world status. Perhaps his is. a22 studied unintelligibility: perhaps Watten...berg, like Oscar Wilde's Lord Darlington, is afraid that"now-a-days to be intelligible is to be found out."For, to take up Wattenberg's catalogue of evils in the reverseofthe order in which he presented it, the internationalstatus of the United States has not deteriorated in the pastdecade-at least, as that status is reflected in our prestigeabroad. From the years of the Vietnam war, when the U.S.government was despised all over the globe, there hasbeennothing but dramatic improvement in U.S. status abroad.And while inflation is undeniably real and rapacious, it isextraordinarily difficult to see in what way it proceeds from"the sensibility of the 1960s': It proceeds, in fact, from onething and one thing only: from U.S. government tamperingwith the money supply. And whatever the new leftists andcounterculturists of the 1960s may have advocated in theirnot infrequent moments ofpolitical madness, they never advocatedtampering with the money supply. It wasn't theirkind of issue. Nor is it associated with them.Their kind ofissue has been typified, and not without justice,as the "personal freedom" issue: the freedom to smokemarijuana, to obtain an abortion, to refuse the slavery ofmilitary "service'; to rear children without the interferenceof either the medical establishment or the public schools.For Wattenberg, presumably, the choice to do any or all ofthese things is evidence of "eroding moral standards"-butthat is not how the majority ofAmericans sees the issue.Marijuana draws closer by the day to the legal-but-regulatedstatus now enjoyed by the favored drugs of Wattenberg'sgeneration, alcohol and tobacco. '1\bortion-on-demand"has lost both its legaland its social stigma. The draft is gone,and efforts to resurrect it have, so far, failed. Home birthand midwifery have become almost de rigueur among middleclass suburbanites, as have private schools. Far fromjoining a "backlash" against the "eroding moral standards"of the '60s, Americans are enthusiastically embracing thoseeroded standards: smokin.g pot, aborting their unwantedTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

pregnancies, having their babies at home, sendIng theirkidsto private schools, dismissing from their minds all the prattlethey hear from commentators like Wattenberg about themoral crisis posed by homosexuality and pornography, decidingto devote their energies instead to pleasing, even indulging,themselves.It is hardly possible to exaggerate the cultural importance ·of this phenomenon, but is easily possible to misapprehendand misname it~ whatever your politics. Thus Wattenberglooks straight at all this culturally acceptable self-indulgenceand calls it a "conservative backlash" against the ethos ofthe'60s. And Henry Fairlie ventures a remarkably similaranalysis in the pages of the liberal New Republic, under thetitle'~Decade ofReaction': Fairlie too sees the conservativeopinion maker as the natural leader of the '70s, but he revealsin his closing paragraphs that he uses the word "conservative"in what can only be called a Pickwickian sense."We are being led by the conservative intellectuals;' he writes,"into the garden ofweeds and nettles that Ayn Rand helpedto prepare for us. If that seems too vulgar, it must be saidthat one of the key conservative works ofthe 1970s, RobertNozick's Anarchy~ State and Utopia, is no less vulgar in aradical libertarianism, as we are asked to consider it, that isreally nothing but a self-indulgent permissiveness-whichany true cons.ervative should resist by instinct-speciouslygiven the dignity of a moral system:'. Murray Rothbard has argued thattraditional liberals andtraditional conservatives are gradualy becoming indistinguishableand have even, in some cases, begun explicitlyproposing a merger of forces to do battle with a new enemycalled "permissiveness': Here, it would seem, is one ofthoseexplicit calls for a merger. Both the liberal and the conservativerecoil in horror from the moral degeneration they seearound them in our culture. And both locate the origins ofthe problem in the cultural upheavals of the 1960s.The '60s, to Fairlie, was a decade of "general social concerns'~a decade in which "social and not personalquestions" dominated public discussion and debate-dominatedeven the bestseller lists. And, as Fairlie sees it, all thisgave way to the hedonistic, self-centered culture of the '70sonly after a massive betrayal.Standing at the end ofthe 1970s, our instinct is to ask why the apparentlyfurious social protests ofthe 1960s led to the new sensibility,to the in-turning of the self. But our question is wrongly put.Much of the social protest of the 1960s was primarily that of personaltheater, which only seemed to have a public concern becauseit took place on the streets. This was most obviously true ofthe Yippies,such as Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, but it was no lesstrue ofsomeone such as H. Bruce Franklin ofStanford who, as lateas the early 1970s, was still being presented to us a revolutionarymartyr, although his "revolutionary Marxism" was, to all whoheard him, the merest fig leaf for his self-indulgent theater, Whatcould be seen only by some in the 1960s, but is now clear to all but afew, is that the new left was, from its beginning to its end, in a selfdestructivealliance with the counterculture, and that the countercultureswallowed. up the new left. Ifit had been seriously politicalat all, the new left would have fought the counterculture tooth andnail. Itwould have cut all connections with the hip and the junky. Itwould have had nothing to do with those who sawall society as theenemy of the individual, a posturizing that was soon extended tothe belief that all reality is the enemy of the individual. When welisten today to Tom Hayden's account of his one-time associates­"Jerry Rubin continues his quest for a therapeutic revolution....Abbie Hoffman has literally dropped out, since he's forced to live as'a fugitive to avoid a long jail sentence on an old drug charge....Rennie Davis has dropped political activism-and that to undertakea spiritual life..."-we are listening to a self-servingmythologizing of one of the great poltical betrayals of all time.So here we have it: a leading conservative hailing the '70sas the decade of long-awaited backlash against the moralturpitude ofthe 1960s; and a prominent liberal damning the'70s as t4e decade in which the promise ofthe '60s-the furiousdevotion to social issues-collapsed into a singlemindeddevotion to the personal, to the self. To make sense of the'70s, it would seem, we must first make sense of the '60s.The meaning of the sixtiesLike Fairlie, Carl Oglesby, who presided over Students for aDemocratic Society in 1965-1966, conceives the '60s as thework of two distinct groups: the new left and the counterculture-or,as he calls it, "the hip culture): But unlikeFairlie, Oglesby approaches his subject matter with firsthand knowledge. And his account of the relationship betweenthe two groups is accordingly more realistic."The differencebetween the hip scene and the New Left movement;'he writes,was something the activists were constantly aware of. How could ithave been otherwise? The hip thing was fundamentally a mass introspection,a drug-boosted look in. The New Left, on the otherhand, went out to the world from a set of shared moral preceptsabout race, war, and imperialism;' it was a recreating of a privatemoral judgment as a public political act. Ofcourse, the normal hippie'severy instinct indisposed him to war and made him whollyeager to demonstrate this, provided that someone else set the stage.But he was satisfied to act without strategic thought, without anysense of political plan, except that the more people there were whosmoked grass, the better off the country would be.Earlier in the same essay ("The World Before Watergate': Inquiry,May 29, 1978), Oglesby identified the "core idea" ofthe new left as the ideathat the United States and USSR were in a process of "convergence":Russian Comunism and American capitalism were comingto mean much the same thing. Both systems had been badly tarnishedin the Cold War struggles and had lost their former idealpurity and moral simplicity. Therefore (ran the early New Left argument),true progressives, classicalliberrals, humanistic revolutionaries,and libertarians needed to strike out beyond receivedliberalism and dogmatic Marxism in search of new comprehensions,a new sense of politics, and a new general project for the left.It seems noteworthy to me that this description ofthe culturaland ideological underpinnings of the new left containsnot a single reference to the economic issues .commonlyassociated with the left in general. The students were notout in the streets during the '60s demanding that factories beturned over to the workers or that the poor of America begiven a guaranteed annual income or that medicine be socialized.Instead they were demanding an end to war and theroots of war-U.S. imperialism-and an end to institutionalized,governmentally mandated racism and sexism.And their reasons for issuing these demands were largelypersonal and individual-as Oglesby suggests when he callsthe new left a "recreating of a private moral judgment as apublic political act:' Those of us who were college studentsduring the turbulent '60s opposed the war in Vietnam andthe U.S. foreign policy ofglobal interventionism and imperialismbecause we were individually appalled at the prospectof being ordered by the leading government of the "freeworld" to murder other human beings whom we did notknow and with whom we had no quarrel, and to act asstanding targets for those other, equally armed anddangerous, human beings. We opposed the officially sanctionedracism and sexism of the period because we believed 23FEBRUARY 1979

24that each human being was, like ourselves, a unique individual,and was entitled to be regarded and approached assuch, rather than as an anonymous member of a groupwhich had arbitrarily been awarded second class social statuson the basis of irrational prejudice. We opposed lawsagainst marijuana because we didn't want to get busted forsmoking a little grass. We opposed government efforts tosilence dissent and impose conformity because we didn'twant to get busted for saying what we thought. We were notso much new leftists, perhaps, as new individualists.This is certainly the conclusion to which one is drawn, atany rate, upon learning from Carl Oglesby that fully two ofthe four constituencies represented by the original new leftwere classical liberals and libertarians, both ofwhom adopta very un-Ieftwing approach to economic issues by insistingon absolute protection ofindividual rights. It is also the conclusiontoward which another survivior of the '60s, JimHougan, has argued, in his recent book, Decadence(William Morrow, 1975). In Hougan's mind, the counterculturewas the central significant fact ofthe '60s. But it wasa shapeless, undefined, and possibly undefinable fact. It was"a loose agglomeration of sects, systems, and disengagedyouths who didn't have enough in common to constitute a'movement' in any meaningful sense ofthe word. What thecounterculture shared with itself was a set of rejections, apreoccupation with consciousness, a belief in exemplary action,and the certainty that the planet's fate rested upon theshoulders of the young:'Loose as this agglomeration was, Hougan argues, itposed a genuine threat to things as they were. It held withinitself the potential of a genuine revolutionary movementbuta cultural movement, not a strictly political one, andcertainly not one devoted to achieving the program of thenew left. "Its alliance with the New Left was mostly fictitious;'Hougan writes, "a combination of cultural expedienceand political propaganda:' In fact,if one is inclined toward conspiracy theories, it may be tempting tobelieve that the answer to the question-Why are we in Vietnam?-is that our presence there offered an irrelevant Left the fulcrumneeded to co-opt a truly dangerous mass phenomenon. (As with allconspiracy theories, this one wildly overestimates the perceptionand chutzpah ofthe bad guys.) Certainly, in the absence ofthe Vietnamdiversion, the anti-authoritarian young would not have toleratedthe rhetoric,. puritanism, materialism, centralism, or totalitarianstyle of the Left.In effect, the Left was the only political element of any importancein American society which opposed the Vietnamesewar, and so, by default, found itself in a position totake over intellectual leadership of a mass movement whichwas actually much more broady based. "Exploiting Vietnamas an opportunity for recruitment;' Hougan writes,"the Left sought to co-opt the counterculture, to reforge thelatter's cultural discontents into the political framework ordainedby Marx a century earlier. It was an awkward, painfulfit:' Moreover, "in the arrogant takeovers of undergroundnewspapers, in the 'politicization' ofcultural insitutionssuch as food co-ops, and in the Leninists' blatantsubversion of organizations such as SDS, the Marxist Leftdemonstrated its appalling bad faith and dogmatism:'If the picture ofthe '60s, the new left, and the counterculturepainted by Oglesby and Hougan is an accuarate one(and it jibes far better with my own memory of the decadethan do the caricatures of Ben Wattenberg and HenryFairlie), then the true meaning ofthe '60s, culturally speaking,is a kind of individualism. The loose agglomeration ofdisaffected, anti-authoritarian young people which came toTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEWbe called the counterculture was unified by its opposition toauthority, its belief in the fundamental importance offreedom and dignity for the individual, its devotion to theidea of consciousness (along with the various methods andsubstances used in altering it and the various theories andtherapeutic techniques used in adapting it to the rigors ofliving), its idealism, and its belief in itself as a generation.Those among the young who were politically inclinedquickly recognized the threat posed to the individual in thiscountry by the U.S. government, and began vigorously opposingthe most blatant of its oppressive acts: the massmurder in Vietnam, the drug laws and repression of dissentat home, the institutionalization of racial and sexualdiscrimination. Recognizing an opportunity when it sawone (and genuinely sympathizing with most ofthe positionsit was co-opting), the forces ofthe left moved in-and were,for the most part, welcomed. After all, what otherAmerican political organizations were actively seeking tojoin the young in their cause? They were told that theircauses were leftwing causes, and they believed it. They weretold that they were the new left, and they called themselvesthe new left, and they came to be called the new left.But the fact is, as we have seen, that they were not, mostof them, leftists at all. So, inevitably, they parted companywith their leftist mentors and fellow-travellers. And whenthey did, how the howling began! Henry Fairlie's alreadyquoted complaint is fairly typical: "If the new left had beenseriously political at all, it would have had nothing to dowith those who sawall society as the enemy of the individual,a posturizing that was soon extended to the beliefthat all reality is the enemy of the individual:'This comes, remember, from the same writer who considerslibertarianism "self-indulgent permissiveness speciouslygiven the dignity of a moral system:' And it is fairlytypical of leftist responses to what has happened to thecounterculture since the '60s, since the end of the draft andthe end ofthe war ended its need, ifever there had been one,for an alliance with the left. As description it is wholly inadequate.Does Fairlie really believe that the young peopleofthe '60s began by believing that all society is the enemy ofthe individual and now believe that all reality is the enemy ofthe individual? Where has he been?Perhaps he's been inhabiting the same hideaway as SusanStern, who writes for Seven Days and In These Times~ andwho announces in the Christmas 1978 issue ofInquiry that agroup of families "could not be described as 'hippies' ormembers of the 'counterculture' " because most of them"were supported by gainfully employed fathers and lived insingle-family dwellings with one or two cars in the garage:'How do Fairlie and Stern think all those millions of youngmembers of the counterculture have been staying alive allthese years? By collecting welfare and food stamps? Bybeing supported by their parents? Or do they think all theflower children have literally died out and we have somehowfailed to notice the dramatic loss in population?The fact is, the campus radicals of the 1960s, who neverreally became devoted to the Marxist economics their leftwingcomrades were peddling but who found it plausibleenough and palatable enough, have spent the last few yearslearning hard practical lessons in the economics of the realworld. They've been out here in the marketplace, findingout first hand about inflation, govenrment regulation ofbusiness, and the laws of supply and demand which theyused to comprehend in terms of"exploited labor" and "greedycapitalists'~ A growing number of the retail merchants,restaurateurs, doctors, lawyers, journalists and business-

people oftoday are the flower children and campus radicalsof yesterday:Allen is a paramedic and lab technician at one ofthe largestand most modern hospitals in metropolitan Los Angeles.He earns a little extra money by growing and selling marijuana.He lives, with his wife and three children, in a threebedroom ranch style house in a suburban middle classneighborhood. He meditates daily, eats no meat, burns incensein every room of his home and also in his car, anddecorates his walls with psychedelic and Indian posters.Twelve years ago, when he was at City College, Allen wasa"new left" radical. Today when he gets involved in politicalconversations, he's fond ofturning his friends on to a film hesaw on public television, "The Incredible Bread Machine;'which presents the case for a free market.To the north, in Berkeley, Greg,Jim and Jerry are findingout first hand what it's like to be a businessman, an entrepreneur,a capitalist. Ten years ago, Greg was tellinghundreds of students at an anti-war rally in Houston's HermannPark that they ought to tear down the buildings ofnearby Rice University "brick by brick': Today he owns andoperates a successful "alternative news service" for radiostations. Ten years ago, Jim and Jerry were writing and distributingradical literature, occupying buildings, issuing demands.Today they're in partnership in the solar energybusiness. Jerry and his wife have two kids and a station wagon,and one of their favorite topics of conversation is thedifficulty you have finding decent schools.Dave was a staff writer for the Los Angeles Free Press tenyears ago, a regular on one ofAmerica's largest and most influentialunderground papers. Today he's an up and comingrealtor with a home in the Hollywood hills.Dennis is a street artist. You can find him most Fridays,Saturdays and Sundays along the San Francisco waterfrontpeddling his handmade leather goods. His wife Rina is a registerednurse, who also teaches natural childbirth classesfor extra money. They live, with their two children, in a$150,000 house in Piedmont, one of the most fashionableaddresses in the San Francisco Bay area. They buy all theirgroceries at health food stores. In November of 1978, theyvoted for Ed Clark, the Libertarian Party candidate for Governorof California.None of these people (and there are hundreds of thousandsof others like them) has abandoned his old counterculturalhabits of thought. All of them are findingthemselves more in agreement than ever with their originalcommitment to peace and individual freedom, but newlyskeptical of their original notions about the role of governmentin promoting "economic justice" as they once called it-and increasingly skeptical, therefore, of the role of governmentperiod."The electorate is skeptical;' writes U.C. Berkeley politicalscience professor Jacob Citrin in the premier issue of anew magazine called Taxing and Spending, "if not whollycontemptuous, of government's ability to solve the nation'sproblems;' He cites figures from the Inter-University Con-­sortium for Political and Social Research showing that nearly75 percent ofthe electorate believe "the government wastesa lot of tax money"; 60 percent believe "the government inWashington can be trusted to do what is right only some ofthe time"; 50 percent believe "public officials don't caremuch what people think"; and 45 percent believe "the peoplerunning the government don't know whatthey are doing:'And these attitudes are, ofcourse, turning up at the polls.CBS news reported on January 14 that slightly less than 50Oscar Wilde by Max Beerbohmpercent of those eligible to vote in the November 1978 electionshad bothered to go to the polls. According to a CerisusBureau spokesman, these non-voters could not properly bedescribed as apathetic; rather, he said, they were politicallyalienated-increasingly uncertain that voting changed anythingor could change anything, that elections were anythingmore than a fraud or a charade. Moreover, the CensusBureau told CBS, it was likely that even more Americans arestaying away from the polls than the figures would seem tosuggest, since it's widely known that many people lie whenasked if they voted in the last election.Possible confirmation of that last gloomy speculationcame early in February, when the British magazine, TheEconomist, released its privately conducted survey of participationin the November 1978 elections. The Economistfound that only 37 percent ofthe electorate had bothered tovote.And it is almost certain that one of the largest factors inthe growth of this non-voting, politically alienated segmentofthe electorate is the progressively more important role thegeneration of the '60s is playing in the public life of the nation.As Jim Hougan puts it, the flower children of the '60sare now in the adolescence oftheir middle age. They are onthe verge of becoming the establishment. And more ofthemare flower children today than were flower children in the'60s-if by "flower children" we mean advocates of thecountercultural values of peace, freedom, consciousness,and youth. Madison Avenue has seen to it that these valueshave been spread through the culture and made acceptable,in some cases, even to those who despised them at the timethey were new."Counterculture and women's liberation are classic ex-FEBRUARY 197925

amples of movements 'processed' by the Avenue;' Houganwrites.The most strategic ideological battles took place... in the suites ofAvenue account execs, inthe minds ofcopywriters, on television,and on the advertising pages ofthe nation's magazines.Itwas there that Americaaccomodateditselfto the new ideas or rejectedthem. What made those ideas virtually impossible to ignorewas the economic strength which the young possessed and, just asimportant, the attention they commanded from their envious elders.In co-opting the young and the women's movement, theAvenue exercised its usual care for the stability of the social boat,going to extraordinary lengths in its efforts to separate the movements'styles, slogans,symbols, heroes, and catchwords from theiressences and contents.Thus were we treated, during the '60s, to pitches forAngel Face makeup, "for the natural look"; Right Guard'snew "natural scent" anti-perspirant; the Powers modelingschool's "liberating" modeling course; Ma Griffe perfumefor the liberated woman; "New Generation" shoes fromHush Puppies; "Female Chauvinist" shirts from Ultressa;and the list goes on and on."The young's reaction was predictable;'Hougan writes.They complained about ."cultural exploitation" and co-optation,but saw little that they could do aboutit. What they didn't seem tounderstand, however, was that co-optation works both ways. TheAvenue co-opted the symbolsand rhetoric ofthe young in order tosell their clients' products but, in doing so, it also sold the thingwhich it'd co-opted. Advertisements for Angel Face, Dep, JimBeam, Levis, Ma Griffe, H.I.S., Hertz, and Right Guard hawkedthe values of the' counterculture and women's lib even as theytouted makeup, hair conditioner, bourbon, pants, deoderants, andperfume. Women's liberation became exactly as acceptable as MaGriffe, and equally chic. It doesn't matter that industry's endorsementof the movement was mercenary and ripe with hypocrisy.What counted was the effect of that endorsement: women whowere ambivalent or skeptical about the movement understood, atleast subliminally, that its values were literally "in Vogue:' Not toaccept those values, or to neglect the rhetoric, was tantamount tobeing "lame;' unattractive, and cloddish. Ma Griffe spoke to thefashionable young women ofAmerica, and pronounced them "liberated";in doing so, the perfume makers struck a greater blow forthe women's movement than all the books about Vaginal Politicsand all the "consciousness-raising sessions" held todate.One may question Hougan's assertion that "industry's endorsementof the movement was mercenary and ripe withhypocrisy." Samuel Brittan, in his recent book, Capitalismand the Permissive Society, writes that "the values of competitivecapitalism have a great deal in common with contemporaryattitudes, and in particular with radical attitudes.Above all they share a similar stress on allowingpeople to do, to the maximum feasible extent, what theyfeel inclined to do rather than conform to the wishes ofauthority, custom or convention:'Of course, as Brittan reminds us,"competitive capitalismis far from being the sole ordominating force ofour society...But to the extent that it prevails, competitive capitalism isthe biggest single force acting on the side ofwhat is fashionableto call 'permissiveness~ but what was once known aspersonal liberty."This is certainly, as we have seen, what happened in theUnited States during the '60s. Through the medium of advertising,capitalists helped to spread and legitimize thevalues of the counterculture..-values, which, as we haveseen, are more properly regarded as individualistic and libertarian,than as collectivist and leftist. As Brittan puts it,"the basic arguments for the so-called 'permissive' moralitywere developed by thinkers in the 19th-centuryliberal tradi-26 tion from John Stuart Mill onwards.... Many ofthe classi-cal ideas of 19th-century liberalism did not come on thestatute book until the 1960s. The battle is still far from won,as can be seen from the sentences still passed on 'obscenepublications' or the hysterical and vindictive attitudeadopted,by so many authority figures towards the problemof drugs:' And again: "the contemporary New Left-andeven more the less overtly political 'youth culture'-is bothhedonistic and suspicious of authority. It is the end road ofthe libertarian and utilitarian ideals professed by the bewiggedphilosophers of the 18th century and Victorian politicalthinkers in their frock coats:'Similarly, Murray N. Rothbard has described the newleft(in "Liberty and the New Left'~ Left and Right, Autumn1965, pp. 35-67) as "a striking and splendid infusion oflibertarianisminto the ranks ofthe Left:' In the same piece, heapprovingly quotes a student activist who argues that thenew left has "taken up a 'right wing' cause which the avowedconservatives have dropped in favor of defending corporationsand hunting Communists. This is the cause ofthe individualagainst the world:'The cause of the individual. Hedonism. Suspicion of authority.The meaning and true legacy ofthe '60s. And whatthen ofthe '70s? Thanks to the power ofadvertising, and tothe power of an idea whose time has come, the whole countryis now moving to the beat of the ghostly drummer whoset the rhythm for the flower children and campus radicalsof a decade and more ago. And we are plunged full tilt intodecadence.The decay of authorityThe word "decadence" has been much used of late in descriptionsofour cultural milieu. Jim Hougan called the '70sdecadent back in 1975, but neglected, in a 250-page discussionfilled with useful insight ffer a straightforward,clear definition of the term. ew Times agazine devotedits farewell issue, the issue of anuary 8, 979, to an analysisof how and why the culture of the '70s was decadent. Thecover depicted a bound and helpless Uncle Sam lying ignominiouslyon the floor; above him, with one foot on hismidriff, stood a beautiful, scantily clad young woman,brandishing a whip. "Decadence;' said the cover, "The People'sChoice:' But the fifty-odd pages oftext shed little morelight on exactly what decadence was than\:Hougan]tad.One emerged from reading them with the vague feeling thatdecadence meant having a good time, or perhaps that itmeant looking for thrills, living the life of a libertine, engagingin extravagant self-indulgence.This is also the feeling about decadence one gets fromreading Hougan. In his closest stabat a definition, he writesthat "its edges are defined by a preoccupation with the senses,an affection for the moment, and an insistence upon thesupremacy or inconsequentiality ofan individual's existenceor acts. Decadence takes place at the extremity of selfindulgence,but it is seldom, if ever, marred by selfimportance:'Russell Kirk, in his newly published Decadence and Renewalin the Higher Learning, invokes the shade of C.E.M.Joad, whose 1948 treatise, Deca~A Philosophical Inquirycharacterized decadence as r a preoccupation with theself and its experiences, promoted by and promoting thesubjectivist analysis of moral, aesthetic, metaphysical,andtheological judgments:' His fellow academic (and politicalopposite), Christopher Lasch, in his newly published TheCulture ofNarcissism, invokes the spirit (and an echo ofthe~THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

terminology) ofMarx: "This book;' he writes in his preface,"describes a way of life that is dying-the culture of come.etitiveindividualism), which in itsdecacIence has carrieathe logic of itidlv.rdUalism to the extreme of a war of allagainst all, the pursuit ofhappiness to the dead end ofa narcissisticpreoccupation with the self."lied us into believing we lived in a society ofequality ofoppor­tunity, when in fact one could be barred from advancementby force of law if one belonged to the wrong sex or race.The one characteristic of decadence which all these commentators-Lasch,Kirk, New Times, Jim Hougan-seemto agree upon is selfishness: self-indulgence, self-preoccupation."To live for the moment is the prevailing passion;'Lasch writes, "-to live for yourself, not for your predecessorsor posterity." Or, he might have added, for your contemporaries.The '60s admonition to "do your own thing"has become the one remaining cultural norm of the 1970s.And doing your own thing entails deciding in your ownmind what your own thing is and making your decision accordingto your own standards, not the ones you've beentaught by various authorities-church, school, family~that it's mandatory you respect.Russell Kirk grasps this issue better than most other contemporarycommentators, and quite accurately traces theorigins of our present period of decadence to the collegecampus of the early 1960s, where authority first began seriouslyto decay. "Why should we believe anything or do anything?"Kirk asks rhetorically. "On what authority?"That question, although put into words by few students during1961, lay uncomfortably just below the daily consciousness ofmany of them. In every generation, among every people, the youngwho are about to enter upon independence make some such inquiry.Ordinarily answers are given, whether or not these replies arewholly satisfactory, and the young accept the answers, if grudgingly.Authority is pointed out to them, and in general they submit.But the liberal democratic age after the Second World War, inAmerica and western Europe, seemed to provide no answer to thequestion "on what authority?"-or at least no answer that satisfiedthe restless and uncertain risinggeneration.... Once upon a time, abishop or a famous preacher had been an authority; an eminentpublic man or a strong-minded general had been an authority; greatbooks had been authorities; a university president or a confidentlearned professor had been an authority; a parent had been an authority.And above all these authorities, in the old culture of whichAmerican society in 1961 was a continuation, had stood the authorityofGod, as expressed through the Bible or the church's tradition.But these old authorities were enfeebled by 1961, or had even re-H. L. Mencken in 1924 by William GropperNaturally, the young rejected these authorities-rejectedthem outright. And in so doing, they posed their own revo­lutionary answer to the questions ofwhy they should believeanything or do anything, and on what authority. They answeredthat each person must be his own authority and must"do his own thing': And a generation destined by its elderst~ ~ecome a cohesive society split up into its component inpudiatedthemselves.dlvlduals.A d 11 th h ld h F th t' th t "The word 'decadence'," wrote the French novelist andn .we ey s ou. a~e. or e genera Ion a came essayist Paul Bourget in 1883of age In the '60s and InquIred then as to why they should

all time low for the standing ofthe State among intellectualsand the young.Oscar Wilde, that living emblem of the '90s, did his bestto disregard all governments. When he passed through customson his way into the U.S. and was asked what he had todeclare, he replied that he had nothing to declare but hisgenius. He is said once to have told a disgruntled tax collectorthat he would not pay his long-delinquent property tax,though he was, as the government alleged, the householder,and did, as the government alleged, live there and sleepthere; because, as he explained it, he slept so badly. In hisfamous essay,"The Soul ofMan Under Socialism'; he wrote:Every man must be left quite free to choose his own work. No formofcompulsion must be exercised over him. Ifthere is, his work willnot be good for him, will not be good in itself, and will not be goodfor others. And by work I simply mean activity of any kind.All associations must be quite voluntary. It is only in voluntary associationsthat man is fine.... there is no necessity to separate the monarch from the mob; allauthority is equally bad.There are three kinds of despots. There is the despot who tyrannizesover the body. There is the despot who tyrannizes over thesoul. There is the despot who tyrannizes over the soul and bodyalike. The first is called the Prince. The second is called the Pope.The third is called the People.The turn of the century saw the literary resurrection ofthe individualist Max Stirner-a biography by John HenryMackay and several new translations of his magnum opus,The Ego and His Own, notably the one commissioned bythe American libertarian Benjamin R. Tucker and publishedby him in 1907. Tucker's own individualist journal Libertyreached its peak ofinternational circulation and influence inthe '90s. And the American critic James Gibbons Huneker,whom H.L. Mencken called "the chief man in the movementof the nineties on this side of the ocean'; wrote at thattime of Max Stirner as "the frankest thinker of his century"and of The Ego and His Own as a "dangerous book ... dangerousin every sense of the word-to socialism, to politicians,to hypocrisy. It asserts the dignity of the Individual,not his debasement:'Mencken himself, the Great Libertarian, was the mostimportant intellectual influence on the decadent American'20s. He edited The Smart Set and The American Mercury,the decade's most overtly, outrageously decadent magazines(the rough equivalents, one might say, of The Yellow Bookthe decade's most overtly, outrageously decadent magazines(the rough equivalents, one might say, of The Yellow Bookand The Savoy, the magazines so closely associated with the'90s in London). He also wrote introductions and helped toselect titles for the Modern Library, probably the most culturallysignificant publishing phenomenon of the '20s. TheModern Library was founded in 1917 by Horace Liveright,who chose Wilde's Picture ofDorian Gray as the first title inhis new series of inexpensive editions of "classics in themodern spirit'; and proceeded in the ensuIng eight years, untilhe sold the firm to Bennett Cerf in 1925, to publish virtuallyevery writer of substantial popularity during the'90s-including Max Stirner, whose The Ego and His Ownwas number 49 in the series. And Modern Library editionswere then as paperback thrillers are now-they paid thebills for the publisher. In the eight years Liveright publishedthe Modern Library, it became the financial backbone ofhisfirm and accounted for annual sales of around 300,000books. The readers who greeted Albert Jay Nock's essay'1\narchist's Progress" on its first appearance in magazine28 form (and, subsequently in the same decade, in book form)were also unable, apparently, to get enough of the literaryand political radicals of three decades before.And we can feel fairly confident that the literary radicalismwas at least as attractive to the readers ofthe'20s as thepolitical radicalism, that they were responsive not only tothe reissue in 1924 ofBenjamin R. Tucker's essays, but alsoto the reissue in 1919 (by the Modern Library, who else?) ofthe essays ofthe French critic Remy de Gourmont,,vho calledfor "individualism in art': For literary authority ,,~as in decayin the '20s as well. On both sides ofthe Atlantic, imaginativewriters were breaking away from conventional ways ofwritingfiction and poetry. In New York and in Paris, the writerswho would become known as the modernists-GertrudeStein, J ames Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, WilliamFaulkner-were experimenting with narrative technique,with characterization, even with grammar and syntaxthemselves. In New York and London, the writers whowould become known as the "exquisites" or "decadents"-GeorgeJean Nathan, Carl Van Vechten, ElinorWylie, James Branch Cabell, Ronald Firbank, Logan PearsallSmith, the Sitwells-were once again practicing a kind ofliteraturewhich had last been seen in the '90s with OscarWilde and Edgar Saltus: a literature ofnovelty and idiosyn-.cracy, of elaborately crafted style and exotic-even bizarreor fantastic-subject matter; a literature calculated to embodyand express the unique individuality of its creator.We are taught in school these days that the literary '20s inAmerica means Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Faulkner. Butuntil the end ofthe decade, Hemingway and Faulkner wereknown mainly· to the readers of small-circulation avantgarde literary magazines; and Fitzgerald was generally regarded,and rightly, as a talented and glib but superficialpopular novelist-the John O'Hara or Ross Macdonald ofhis day. At the time, the writers who were ofthe new wave,the writers who were the darlings of the media and theyoung radical contingent of the literary establishment, thewriters who were hot, were the writers grouped aroundH.L. Mencken-especially Cabell, Van Vechten andNathan. The writers who were hot at the time, in effect,were of the mold of Oscar Wilde: iconoclastic, individualistic,satirical, devoted to perfection of style.And it is no accident that a strikingly similar group ofwriters best represents the literary culture of our own decadenttime: Kurt Vonnegut, Donald Barthelme, Tom Wolfe,William H. Gass, Ken Kesey. Surely the memory of MotherNight, Cat's Cradle, The Dead Father, Mauve Gloves andMadmen, Omensetter's Luck,and One Flew Over theCuckoo's Nest is sufficient to dispel Henry Fairlie's lamentthat "no previous decade in this century has been so barrenof anything ... in literature to which one might think of attachingthe label of greatness:' And if it be protested thatof anything ... in literature to which one might think of attachingthe label of greatness:' And if it be protested thatmost of the titles just named come not from the '70s butfrom the '60s, let it be remembered that the '70s is properlyunderstood as a continuation ofthe '60s. And for that matter,there is no shortage of serious major works in the '70sitself: Wilfrid Sheed's Max Jamison, for example, or UrsulaK. LeGuin's Orsinian Tales, or Samuel R. Delany's Dhalgren,which, like Vonnegut's early novels, has been forced to appearfirst in paperback and establish a massive cult followingfor itself before being honored with hardcover publicationand serious critical notice. And if one takes account ofthe fact (as Fairlie does not) that the essay is beginning tosupplant the novel as the favored prose form for serious lit-THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

e~~y artists in this culture, then the list of important worksof the '70s grows even longer: William H. G-ass's On BeingBlue and The World Within the Word, Robert Harbison'sEccentric Spaces, and Delany's The Jewel-Hinged Jaw comeimmediately to mind.Contrary to Fairlie's assertion, ours is an era ofimportantliterary and artistic work. Like every decadent period beforeit, it is a period ofinnovation and high craftsmanship in thearts, and of passionate commitment to ideas in all the intellectualspheres. When an individual chooses his ideas forhimself, judges them for himself, and does with them whathe wishes to do with them, he is much more likely to devotehimself to ideas with enthusiasm and dedication than whenhe is forced to rely on an authority to decide for him what isworth studying and what use should be made of it. To besure, many of the ideas to which individuals devote themselvesare false, and lead only to foolishness. And in decadentperiods, when authorities are in decline and the manyfeel free to violate their precepts, such false ideas often winlarge followings. The decay ofscientific authority has led torenewed popularity for parapsychology, occult studies, andastrology-in the 1890s, in the 1920s, and in our own era.The decay ofmedical authority has led to renewed popularityfor chiropractic and naturopathy-in the '90s, in the'20s, and in our own era. The decline ofreligious authorityhas led to the formation ofthousands of sects and cults-inall three eras. The decline ofmoral authority has led, on theone hand, to the "permissiveness" of homosexual chic andporno chic and the "sexual revolution" and the casual, semipublicuse of illegal psychoactive drugs; on the other hand,the decay of moral authority has led to development of apacifist movement and an animal rights movement devotedto principled vegetarianism. When "deprived" of moral authorityfigures, it seems, some become libertines, others attemptto become saints.It is particularly ironic, in fact, that the Freudian-Marxistcritic Christopher Lasch should portray the current decadenceas a period of"war ofall against all': The phrase itselfis not surprising, of course, except in the context of Lasch'sbook (The Culture a/Narcissism), which is otherwise quitefree of cliches and slogans. But it is particularly ironic in aperiod when pacifism is making a comeback to be told thatthe culture is plunged into civil war. In fact, there is not onlya new pacifism on the scene, there is also that sine qua non ofinternational peace, a movement for a non-interventionistforeign policy.A recent New York Times poll indicated that '~mericansin increasing numbers want a peaceful world, and opposeany United States involvement in foreign crises:' And it isclear that they have come to this point of view through theefforts of a variety of opinion makers from all parts of thepolitical spectrum. As Norman Podhoretz has pointed out,It would be a great mistake to assume that these people, the newisolationists, are all liberals (or what is nowadays called liberals).Many, or even most, so-called liberals today are indeed isolationists,but so are many "conservatives:'... we are now witnessing theemergence ofa concensus in support ofthe new isolationism whichcuts across party lines and unites a wide variety ofotherwise diveremergenceofa concensus in support ofthe new isolationism whichcuts across party lines and unites a wide variety ofotherwise divergentideological groupings.Precisely. The anti-war movement of the "new left" duringthe '60s united a wide variety of ideological stances into asingle, individualistic effort. And outofthat anti-war movementhas grown, not an "isolationist" movement, strictlyspeaking-there is no serious opposition to economic andKurt Vonnegut, Jr. by himself (from Self-Portraits,edited by Burt Britton, Random House, 1976)cultural exchange with those in other countries-but a non- .interventionist movement.Podhoretz sees this movement as dangerous. The April,1976 article from which the above remarks are quoted wasentitled "Making the World Safe for Communism': And thefollowing year, in the pages of Harper's magazine, in an essaycalled "The Culture of Appeasement'~he dwelt on the bynow predictable parallels between the growth of the contemporarypacifist and non-interventionist movements andthe growth of such movements during the '20s and early'30s. Pacifism and non-interventionism led us to the rise ofNazi Germany, Podhoretz announced, and to the Holocaustand to the War. Are we going to learn from that lesson, heasked, or are we not?A telling question, certainly, and one to which anothershould be added. Was World War II in fact a consequence ofa policy of "appeasement"-that is, a policy of non-interventionin Hitler's efforts to regain German territory whichhad been unjustly and imprudently seized by the victoriousAllied powers under the infamous Treaty of Versailles? Orwas it rather a consequence of the British "guarantee'; withRoosevelt's assent, of the "territorial integrity" of Polandthatis, of the failure to consistently pursue a non-interventionistforeign policy? Since it was Britain and France whichdeclared war on Germany, and not the other way around,might not a foreign policy of non-interventionism, pursuedconsistently by both Britain and France, have led to Hitler'sinitial goal of a war between Germany and Russia instead?And might that not have exhausted both totalitarian giantsin the process? Growing numbers of historians and foreignpolicy analysts have suggested precisely this, to wit, that apolicy of "appeasement;' correctly seen as a non-interventionistpolicy, and consistently pursued, would not onlyhave averted a second World War, but would also havediminished the chances for development ofthe strong Sovietstate of which Podhoretz is now so frightened. Bruce M.Russett has recently argued that there was No Clear and PresentDanger to the United States posed by Germany, andEarl C. Ravenal has claimed, in his 1978 book, NeverAgain: Learningfrom America's Foreign Policy Failures, thatthe alleged "lesson" of Munich and "appeasement" is not sosimple, and can be interpreted in more ways than one. Whatabout these perspectives on appeasement and war?But Lasch's bromide about a war of all against all is absurdnot only in its literal sense, but also-and perhaps particularly-inthe figurative sense in which it is intended. Notonly is the tendency ofour decadent culture toward internationalpeace and harmony; it is toward peace and harmony 29FEBRUARY 1979

athome as well. As Friedrich Hayek has argued, it could notbe otherwise. The implementation of the principle of noncoercioncan only result in the development of a "spontaneousorder'; which both accomodates the different plansof millions of individuals to each other and maximizes alltheir chances for success. It is not decadence, but theauthoritarian state, which leads to a war ofall against all. Itis not the authoritarian state, but decadence, which permitsthe avid, unmolested pursuit by all of the myriad ideas andideologies to which they are so passionately committedbecause they have chosen them themselves.The significance of CaliforniaThere is political commitment during periods of decadencetoo, for all that the detractors ofour decade claim otherwise.Christopher Lasch asserts, in his new polemic on The CultureofNarcissism, thatAfter the political turmoil of the sixties, Americans have retreatedto purely personal preoccupations. Having no hope of improvingtheir lives in any of the ways that.matter, people have convincedthemselves that what matters is psychic self-improvement: gettingin touch with their feelings, eating health food, taking lessons inballet or belly dancing, immersing themselves in the wisdom oftheEast, jogging, learning how to "relate;' overcoming the "fear ofpleasure:' Harmless in themselves, these pursuits, elevated to a programand wrapped in the rhetoric of authenticity and awareness,signify a retreat from politics and a repudiation of the recent past.On the contrary! All this decadent behavior is by nomeans a repudiation ofthe political ideals ofthe '60s. Listento another veteran ofthe movement discuss the issue-DaveDellinger, writing in Seven Days, December 8, 1978: "Whendid it become inconsistent with the struggle for a classlesssociety to struggle against personal alienation from our owndeepest satisfactions-in work, in personal relations, in artand nature, in the search for understanding ofthe mysteriesof life, death and processes of the universe?" When indeed?The politics of the '60s were always individualistic at root,and not at all opposed in spirit to the ethos of the "MeDecade': As Lasch himself points out, "what looks topolitical scientists like voter apathy may represent a healthyskepticism about a political system in which public lying hasbecome endemic and routine. A distrust ofexperts may helpto diminish the dependence on experts that has crippled thecapacity for self-help!'More important is Lasch's assertion that Americans have"retreated from politics:' They have not. But they have adjustedtheir politics slightly from the 1960s, to better take intoaccount the nature of a society which is coming apart.Former SDS leader turned establishment politician, TomHayden puts it in almost exactly that way."What there is is acoming-apart of society;' he told the Los Angeles.Times inDecember. '~nd it's most extreme;' he added,"in California:'California is in fact where the decadence is the most fargone, and therefore where the politics of the '60s have adjustedmost completely to the '70s-retaining their basiccharacter, but modifying their outward appearance.The radicals ofthe '60s learned an important politicallessoneven before they learned the economic lessons of enteringthe economy ofthe '70s. They learned that the system isset up to screw you; that the Right is in on it and the Left is inon it; and that neither ofthem is to be trusted. They learnedthat most elections are farces. So they started registering asindependents, rather than as Republicans or Democrats.30 They started staying away from some elections entirely, andvoting in others only on the issues, not on the candidates.Examples? In California, Proposition 13 has been overwhelminglyapproved, and the Briggs initiative whichwould have removed homosexual teachers from the publicschools has gone down to ignominious defeat-and in eachcase, voter turnout for the ballot propositions was muchhigher than for the elective races on the same ballots. Theworld has been put on notice.that Californians welcome diversitybut will not tolerate greedy government. And, as. isusual with California, each of these election outcomes hasreverberated far beyond the borders of the state. Proposition13 has kicked off the major political movement of the'70s, the tax revolt. The defeat of Briggs has given new impetusto the already burgeoning gay rights movement.And-need it be said?-each ofthese election outcomes isfairly representative ofthe decadent, politics ofself-interestwhich characterizes California. It's not hard to see how inthe case ofProp 13, but itmay be hard in the case ofBriggs,at least at first glance. The fact is, though, that all thepolitics in California, Briggs included, fits the self-interestedpattern.Itwas in California, remember, in November oflastyear, that the Libertarian Party scored the largest vote for athird-party candidate for Governor in more than thirtyyears. And it was of California that Politics Today analystWilliam Schneider wrote in the last months of1978 that politicalcauses theredraw support from those who feel secure about their own valuesand resentful that the rest of society does not apprecitate them.Goldwater and Reagan supporters say, ~~We live honest, moral, andvirtuous lives. Why should we support a government infested withimmorality, wastefulness, and disloyalty?" Those on the left say,We practice tolerance and abhor violence. Why should we supporta government that oppresses minorities and perpetuates aggression?"It is worth noting that the values. with which theseCalifornia voters feel so secure are self-chosen values inmore instances than not. California, gigantic as it is, encompassesmind-taxing diversity. But it is probably fair to saythat a larger proportion of those in California are livingtheir lives as they see fit-however that may be-thanalmost anywhere else in the country. And the sense of commitmentthey develop for these ideas and values they havediscovered and implemented in the absenceofany authoritycarries over into their very attitude toward politics."The leftand the right in· California are completely opposed in theirissue preferences and ideology;' Schneider writes,but they do share a certain similarity ofpolitical sytle. That style isexpressive and moralistic:· politics is a contest of values. It is opposedto the more pragmatic style, namely, politics as a contest ofinterests. Interests can be compromised but values cannot. Howcan one willingly go along with what is wrong?It is significant that Harper's editor Lewis H. Lapham, aformer Californian, has chosen to publish·an attack onCalifornia in the February, 1979 issue of his magazine, andto conclude that attack with a confession."I left California;'Lapham writes,"becauseI didn't have the moral fortitude tocontend with the polymorphousness of the place:'He's right. Moral fortitude is exactly what it takes toforego authority, to take responsibility for one's life, and tolive affably in a society in which anything goes. Moral fortitudeis exactly whatittakes to deal with diversity, pluralism,heterogeneity-all the sxnonyms for cultural decadence. Tothose who lack it and find themselves unable to summon thewill to develop it, decadence is obviously a frightening, unsettlingphenomenon. To those who can meet the test, it isthe gift of a lifetime: an opportunity to join in an era ofunexampledliberty, creativity, progress, and peace. 0THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

~----------------------------------------,2BBIraiegiesfor Staying Ahead oflbelew InflationSome of the world's most successful financial thinkersoffer their best ideas and make specific investment recommendationsin these Special Reports from Personal Finance,America's most widely read personal finance advisory service.Just check off the Reports you want and we'll rush themto you, postage paid.If you're not completely satisfied with these Special Reports,simply return them within 3 weeks for a full refund.o 1978 ISSUES COMPLETE IN LIBRARY BINDER-$40.(800)o 1977 ISSUES COMPLETE IN LIBRARY BINDER-$40.(700)----------------------o NEW PROFITS IN GOLD STOCKS, by Douglas R. Casey.Risks and rewards, including high dividends, from South Africangold shares and mutual funds. 823o GOLD, STOCKS, AND THE DISCOUNT RATE, byHarry Browne. The dean of hard-money investors uses theFed's stocks-with a spectacular record. 822o SMART WAYS TO BUY AND SELL A HOME, by JohnT. Reed. Buying and selling without a broker and home improvementsthat pay. 821o THE BEAT INFLATION STRATEGY FOR 1979, byRoger Klein and William Wolman. Their inflation-cYcletheory predicts a stronger U.S. dollar temporarily. 820o HOW TO INVEST IN FOREIGN SECURITIES, by DennisM. Hardaker. How to buy and sell over 200 foreign stocks-in Japan, Germany, Mexico, Canada. 819o THE OUTLOOK FOR GOLD, OCTOBER 1978-MARCH1979, by Walter Perschke. Review of profits in coins, futuresand stocks and a forecast. 818o INFLATION-DEPRESSION PROOF BUSINESSES, byDonald J. Hoppe. Specific businesses which will profit froma chronic inflation or devastating depression. 817o MAKING LIFE EASIER WITH GADGETS, by JohnKois. Preview of the latest inventions-in calculators, cassetterecorders, computers, telephones, audio equipment, televisionand play things. 816o YOU CAN STILL PROFIT FROM TAX HAVENS, byRobert Kinsman. Emphasis on tax savings through foreigncorporations and banking. 81 5o SWITZERLAND: AN ECONOMIC AND FINANCIALHAVEN, by Mark Skousen. A review of the incredible economicmiracle and uniq ue ways to invest. 814o THE OUTLOOK FOR SILVER, JULY-DECEMBER,1978, by Walter Perschke. Our expert's review of profitsfrom coins, stocks, and futures and predictions. 813o THE KONDRATIEFF CYCLE MYTH, by Murray N.Rothbard. The dean of Austrian economics destroys thetenets of a mechan'stic cyc! e theory. 812o WORLD CURRENCY OUTLOOK, by Mark Tier. Fundamentaland technical analysis of the U.S. dollar, Japaneseyen, German mark, and Swiss franc. 811o INTERNATIONAL BARGAIN VACATIONS, by TriciaMorrisroe. How to save thousands of dollars traveling aroundo HOW TO AVOID THE DANGERS OF FRAUD, by JeffreyRosen and John Stoppleman. How to recognize signs ofa fraudulent business and where to find help. 809o HOW TO PROFIT FROM STOCK CHARTS, by GeraldAppel. How to use bar charts, volume and chart formationsto beat the stock market. 808o THE OUTLOOK· FOR GOLD, APRIL - SEPTEMBER,1978, by Walter Perschke. A review of the coins, bulJionstocks, and futures plus a prediction for the price of gold.807o HOW TO CUT YOUR REAL ESTATE TAXES, by JohnT. Reed. Three practical ways to reduce your property taxes.806o A BEAT INFLATION STRATEGY FOR 1978-79, byRoger Klein and William Wolman. The inflation cycle underCarter and how to profit. 805o SPECULATIVE OPPORTUNITIES IN MEXICO, by MarkSkousen. A review of Mexican investments-stocks, coins,bank accounts, real estate. 804o HOW TO BUY AND SELL AT AUCTION, by WalterPerschke. Little known tips on picking up bargains at auctions.803o EARN HIGH INTEREST AND DEFER TAXES ONYOUR SAVINGS, by Terry Coxon. The incredible advantagesof annuities. 802o OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS IN PENNY GOLDSTOCKS, by Douglas R. Casey. The fortune potential inpenny shares. 801o HOUSE, CONDOMINIUM, OR APARTMENT: WHICHIS THE BEST INVESTMENT?, by John T. Reed. A simpleway to determine the be-st real e'state investment. 724o HOW BORROWING CAN REDUCE YOUR RISK, byTerry Coxon. Risks and rewards when buying on margin, usingmortgages, futures, life insurance, and other loansources. 723o HOW TO CHOOSE A STOCKBROKER, by Douglas R.Casey. How to wisely pick between service houses, discountbrokers, and investment advisers. 722o HOW TO BEAT THE STOCK MARKET USING 'TELE­PHONE SWITCH' MUTUAL FUNDS, by Dick Fabian. Aproven technique of making consistent profits in stocks inbull and bear markets. 720o HOW TO INVEST IN NATURAL RESOURCES, byWalter Youngquist. Investments in oil and gas, coal, uranium,solar energy, non-metals, and renewable resources. 719o HOW TO INVEST IN THE GERMAN ECONOMICMIRACLE, by Douglas R. Casey. Little known, but profitablemutual funds investing in Germany's future. 718It)othe world. 810L- ------------('t)TO ORDER any of the above Special Reports,just check your selections, and tear out andmail this entire page.NameAddressPlease PrintPRICES: All 29 Special Reports, $21.75. $2.00 each. Five City State Zip ~for $7.50. Ten for $12.50. One hundred for $70. Postage 0'1paid. Prices apply to anyone or combination of issues. ~I[j Also enter my 0 new Orenewal subscription to PersonalI Ilelitllllil l~illllllCe IFinance for! year. I enclose $48. INFLATION SURVIVAL STRATEGIES IL-------------------OEnclosed is my check or money order for $ P.O. Box 2599, Landover Hills, Maryland 20784 I----__~J__

The Mythof MonolithicCODlDlunisDIMURRAY N . ROTHBARDFor decades it was an axiom of conservativefaith that international Communismwas and must be a monolith, that Communismin all its aspects and manifestationswas simply pure evil (because it was"atheistic" and/or totalitarian by definition),and that therefore all Communismwas necessarily the same.For one thing, this meant that all Communistparties everywhere were of necessitysimply "agents of Moscow': It took conservativesyears to disabuse themselves ofthis mythology (which was true only duringthe 1930s and most ofthe 1940s). Tito'scourageous break with Stalin and worldCommunism in 1948 was considered atrivial exception; and for many years afterthe bitter China-Russia split, conservativesclung to the fond hope that this split mustbe a hoax designed to deceive the West.However, now that China has shifted fromattacking Russia for not being opposedenough to U.5. imperialism, to urging theU.S. ever onward to a war with Russia;and now that the Vietnamese Communistshave crushed the Cambodian Communistregime in a lightning thrust, this myth of aworld Communist monolith has at last hadto be abandoned.Why should all Communist parties andgroups necessarily form a monolith? The32 standard conservative answer is that Com-munists all have the same ideology, that they are all Marxist­Leninists, and that therefore they should necessarily be united.In the first place, this is an embarrassingly naive view ofideological movements. Christians, too, are supposed tohave the same religion and therefore should be united, butthe historical record of inter-Christian warfare has been alltoo clear. Secondly, Marx, while eager enough to criticizefeudalist and "capitalist" society, was almost ludicrouslyvague on what the future Communist society was supposedto look like, and what Communist regimes were supposedto do once their revolution had triumphed. Ifthe same Biblehas been used to support an enormous and discordant varietyof interpretationsand creeds, the paucity of details inMarx has allow~d for an even wider range of strategies andactions by Communist regimes.Moreover, ideology is not all. As libertarians should beaware, whenever any group, regardless of ideology, takesover a State, it immediately· constitutes a ruling class overthe people and the land governed by that State. It immediatelyacquires interests ofState, which can readily clash withthe interests ofother State ruling classes, regardless ofideology.The splits between Yugoslavia and Russia, China andRussia, and now Vietnam and Cambodia, were mixtures invarying proprotions of inter-State and ideological clashes.And generally when one ofthese conflicts launched the fray,the other soon caught up.But if everyone must now concede that there can be andare clashes and even bitter warfare between Communiststates, libertarians have been slow to realize that Communismis not a monolith in yet another sense-in the sortof"domestic" or internal regime that Communist rulers willimpose. There are now vast diferences among the variousCommunist regimes throughout the globe, divergences thatliterally spell the difference between life and death for alarge part oftheir subject populations. Ifwe want to find outabout the world we live in, therefore, it is no longer enoughfor libertarians to simply equate Communism with badness,and let it go at that.This necessity for grasping distinctions is particularlyvital for libertarians: For our ultimate aim is to bring freedomto the entire world, and therefore it makes an enormousdifference to us in which direction various countriesare moving, whether toward liberty or toward slavery. If, inshort, we consider a simplified spectrum of countries or societies,with total freedom at one end and total slavery at theother, different varieties of Communist regimes will rangeTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

over a considerable length ofthat spectrum, from the horrifyingslave state of Pol Pot's Cambodia all the way to thequasi-free system of Yugoslavia.Until World War II, Soviet Russia was the only exampleof a Communist regime. And even it had gone through remarkablechanges. When the Bolsheviks assumed power inlate 1917, they tried to leap into full "communism" byabolishing money and· prices, an experiment so disastrous(it was later dubbed "War Communism") that Lenin, alwaysthe supreme realist, beat a hasty retreat to a mere semisocialistsystem in the New Economic Policy (NEP). Duringthe mid and late 1920s, the ruling Communist apparatusdebated within itself what path to pursue in the future.Nikolai Bukharin, Lenin's favorite theoretician, advocatedmoving forward to a free-market economy, with peasantsallowed to develop their land voluntarily and to purchasemanufactured goods from abroad. For a while it looked as ifBukharinismwould win out, butthen Stalin seized power inthe late 1920s and early 1930s and brutally collectivized thepeasantry and the rest ofthe economy, ushering in two decadesof the classic Stalinist model: collectivized economy,forced industrialization and political terror.The case of YugoslaviaThe first break from the Stalinist model was that of Tito,who followed his 1948 political break two years later with aremarkably rapid shift away from the collectivized economyand toward the market. By the late 1960s, Yugoslavia,which had never dared to collectivize agriculture, allowednumerous small private businesses, while the "sociallyowned sector" had been shifted to producers' coops, ownedby the workers in each particular firm. Among these firms, aroughly free-price and free-market system was allowed tooperate, and taxes were drastically lowered so that eachworker-controlled firm controlled its investments out of itsown profits. Along with the shift to the market came thewelcoming of foreign investment, the freedom of emigrationand return, extreme decentralization for the nationalitieswithin Yugoslavia, and even limited contestedelections and limited check by parliament upop. the executive.Even philosophically, the Yugoslavs began to stressthe primacy of the individual over the collective; and whilepolitical prisoners continue to exist there and free speech isfeeble, the contrast with Stalinism is enormous. The Titoiteshave even decided to take seriously the long-forgottenMarxian promise of the "withering away of the State"; theway to do it, they have concluded, is to start withering. Allobservers remark that Belgrade and especially Croatian Zagrebare the only Communist cities in the world where thespirit ofthe people is happy, consumer goods are diverse andplentiful, and life is not simply a dim gray haze ofshortages,queueing up, rationing, and enforced silence.Following Yugoslavia's lead, the rest of Eastern Europehas also gone far along the path to free markets and a pricesystem, although not nearly as far as pioneering Yugoslavia.The least degree ofliberalization has occurred in Russia, althougheven here the status of dissidents today is far betterthan under Stalin.This does not mean, of course, that Yugoslavia is "libertarian'~or that the free-market has been fully establishedthere. But it does mean that there is hope for freedom andfor the human spirit when Eastern Europe has come so farin a relatively short time from collectivized misery to at leasta semi-free system. Conservatives have always believed thatonce a nation goes Communist it is irrevocably doomed,that collectivism, once adopted, is irreversible. Yugoslavia,33FEBRUARY 1979

andto some extent the remainder of Eastern Europe, haveshown that this is not true, that the spirit of freedom cannever be extinguished.34The liberalization of ChinaFor a long while it looked as if China would never beliberalized,that it would remain locked in the super-Stalinism ofMaoism. For nearly a decade after their takeover, theChinese Communists did retain.a semi-free market system,only to extirpate it in two savage thrusts into totalitarianism:the Great Leap Forward of the late 1950s (which featuredsuch disastrous economic experiments in self-sufficiencyas a steel plant in every rural commune's backyard),and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of the late1960s (in which the division of labor was crippled, educationwas stifled, economic incentives were eliminated, andcompulsory communes were strengthened with a repressiveapparatusextending into each urban block and rural village).Art, literature, and speech were all brutallY'suppressed.It all came apart with the death in 1976 of the foundingabsolute despot himself, Mao Tse-tung. The "Gang ofFour'~ led by Mao's widow Chiang Ching and leaders oftheradical left, were arrested, to the tune of spontaneous outpouringsof joy by the Chinese populace, even in "red"Shanghai. Mao's successors, led clearly over the last year bythe twice-disgraced Teng Hsiao-p'ing, have moved with remarkablespeed to dismantle totalitarian Maoism and toshift rapidly toward a far freer economy and society. Westernculture is now permitted and encouraged. Wall postersare allowed which call for ever greater democracy and humanrights,one even quoting from the American Declarationof Independence. And consumers are permitted to escapethe compulsory ant-hill uniformity of clothing and tobuy a variety of consumer goods. Workers are allowed torespond to economic incentives to produce and consume(instead of the "moral" incentives imposed by the bayonetand by CommunistParty snoops).·A far greater interplay ofsmall-scale private property and free markets is permitted.A rule of law is· soon to replace arbitrary whim by ad hocmilitary and party committees. And particularly importantis that the Chinese are now telling theirpeople that Mao,and even Marx himself,were not always right, that evenMarxism must pass judgment before the bar oftruth (nowcalled, in Tengianjargon,"the Norm ofTruth:') Foreign investmentand trade is being encouraged.In a sense, China has only now gone as far as Stalinism,although even that is a great improvement over Mao. Butthere are signs that it will go much further toward theEastern European system. When Chinese Premier HuaKung-fo visited Yugoslavia last year, he clapped his handswith glee when he heard that worker-owned firms there canactually go bankrupt. In the October 6,1978 issue ofChina'smajor journal, the People'S Daily, the veteran economist andhistorian Hu Chiao-mu, once a secretary to Mao, dumpedduring the Cultural Revolution, and now President of thenew Tengian Academy of Social Sciences, published ahighly significant article charting the nation's new economiccourse-"Observe Economic Laws and Speed Up the FourModernizations:' (People's Daily, Oct. 6,1978. For an analysis,see China News Analysis, #1139, Nov. 10, 1978.)Hu called for radical reorganization of the Chinese system,and for "rule by contracts instead ofmandatory rule ofthe economy, with minimum government interference,which would also entail the withdrawal of the Party fromTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEWThe first communist ruler to break from the Stalinist modelwasTito ofYugoslavia,who began permitting private ownership ofbusinesses, like the produce stands in this open-air market, in theearly 1950s.running the economy:' He advocated division oflabor, freertrade, and putting economics abovepolictial power. Hu'sstatementthat "experience has shown that socialism cannotguarantee that political power will not do immense damageto economic development" is a remarkable one, consideringthe source. China News Analysis concludes thatWhat Hu describes is a free economy in which the workers sign acontract with the enterprise, the enterprise makes its own decisioninthe form ofcontracts with other enterprises orwith the State, andthe implementation of the contracts is controlled by the judiciary.What Hu envisages is, though this is not· stated explicitly, anindependent judiciary competent to adjudicate oncontracts not onlybetween individuals but also between the State and individualfirms.Similarly the villages are to be left free to decide what to sow,and they are notto come under the authoritative rule of officials.Again, no one is saying that China is or will soon becomea libertarian Paradise, butthe contrast with ant-hill Maoismis staggering.

Toward liberty in Southeast AsiaThis brings us finally to Vietnam and Cambodia. With itsunfortunate and vicious nationalization ofthe merchants inthe South last year, Vietnam has now taken its place as atypical Stalinist country. But Cambodia ("Democratic Kampuchea")was something else again. It was undoubtedly themost horrendous regime of this century anywhere in theworld. Not only did the Cambodian Communists quicklymurder millions after taking power, and forcibly evacuatethe cities at one blow; not only was death the penalty for theslightest infraction or disobedience to the regime: the key toits diabolic control was its abolition of all money, whichCommunist official, Phan Trong Tue, spoke of the lateCambodian regime as having killed masses of people "withhammers, knives, sticks and hoes, like kiling wee insects:'And then Tue rose to a pitch of eloquence:The whole country was reduced to nil; no freedom ofmovement,no freedom of association, no freedom of speech, no freedom ofreligion, no freedom to study, no freedom of marriage, no currency,no business, no trade, no more pagodas, and no more tears to shedover the people's sufferings. (D.P.I. dispatch, January 12, 1979)We may contrast this to the shameful whitewashing ofCambodia by the American media after Cambodia's mentorChina drew closer to the United States, and to the UnitedStates defense of Cambodia against Vietnam before theUnited Nations, coupled with the barest slap on the wristCl:::lAgriculture, on which the economy of China is based, has been greatly liberalized since Mao's death, and there are signs that thecountry will go much further toward the Eastern European system.abolition is also enforced through murder and terror. Even for its "possible" violations of human rights.Stalin, even Mao, retained the use ofmoney; and so long as I hasten to add-for the benefit ofattentive readers-thatmoney exists, there is some sort ofprice system, and people I do not condone the Vietnamese violation of the principleare able to buy goods oftheir choice and move from place to ofnon-intervention, and that if I were a Vietnamese, and inplace, even if in black markets or in disobedience to govern- the unlikely event that I could express my dissent freely, Iment regulations. But if money is abolished, then everyone would have opposed the invasion. But now that the invaishelpless, dependent for his very subsistence on the meager sion has been concluded, we can all surely be permitted torations grudgingly handed to him by the regime in power. rejoice at the death ofthe most monstrous, bizarre, and evilFrom the abolition of money came compulsory rural com- State in many centuries. As I tried to make clear at the colmunalism,including the abolition of private eating, the in- lapse of the Thieu dictatorship in South Vietnam, one canstitution of compulsory marriages, and the eradication of hail the death of a State without implying approval of thelearning, culture, the family, religion, etc. Cambodia was State that replaces it. The new Vietnamese-backed Nationalhorror incarnate.Salvation Front regime ofHeng Samrin has already restoredThe Vietnamese lightning thrust that smashed the Cam- money, freedom of religion, freedom of marriage, freedombodian regime was not solely or even primarily caused by to return to cities, and freedom to cook and eat in one's ownideological considerations. Undoubtedly uppermost were home (symbolized by the new regime's restoring a cookingancient ethnic hostility between the more proserous Viet- pot to each family previously dragooned into communalnamese and the more backward Khmers (inhabitants of kitchens.) The new Salvation Front regime is indeed a havenCambodia); the desire ofthe Vietnamese rulers to dominate of freedom for the individual Cambodian compared to theall of Indochina; anger at long-repeated border incursions previous slavery under Pol Pot. But this by no means impliesby Cambodian troops; and the Vietnamese fear of growing that the new regime is libertarian or that its own statismencirclement by the combined forces ofthe U.S. and China, should not be opposed and combatted by the Cambodiansupporting Cambodia on its southwestern flank. But there people.is no denying the horror that even the Vietnamese Stalinists But for the people of China and Cambodia, recent eventsfelt for the Cambodian monstrosity. When they entered the have meant a leap toward freedom that can only bring re­Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh, the Vietnamese des- joicing to the hearts of libertarians everywhere. ~cribed the desolation ofthat city, and spoke ofthe deliberatemass murders, the forced evacuations. A top Vietnamese Murray N. Rothbard is a contributing editor of LR. 35FEBRUARY 1979

ChineseCommunismand theEconomic RevolutionLEONARD R LIGGIOThe new relationship between China andthe United States has a long history. America'slong term interests in China date to1784 when the clipper ship "Empress ofChina;' sailed from New York for Canton.Although American shipping had dominatedthe British merchant marine for overa hundred years, this was the first Americanship to travel to China. With the peacetreaty between England and America afterthe Revolutionary War, American shippingcould enter the area previously reserved bymercantilist legislation to the English EastIndia Company-the Indian and PacificOceans.Americans traded the furs procured inthe Pacific Northwest (in conflict with Russian,English and Spanish claims) for theteas ofChina. The amazing Baltimore Clippers,American's contribution to the highesttechnology of sailing ships, dominatedthe sea lanes to China and the East Indiesduring the early 19th centllry. With the endingof the Anglo-American administrationof the Oregon territory and British Columbiain 1846 and the annexation of AltaCalifornia (and the western U.S.) fromMexico in 1848, the U.S. became evenmore interested in China andJapan. Americanagents sought to establish control overFormosa in the 1850s. American diplomats36 were active in seeking to annex Korea in the1880s. Finally, in 1895, the Japanese unexpectedly defeatedChina in war, gaining Formosa and a leading position inKorea. Tsarist Russia, meanwhile, established a militarydominance in Manchuria after adding large sections ofit toSiberia in 1858 and 1860. Germany established a protectoratein north China, the British extended their sphere ofinfluence from central China around Shanghai to the north,and France created an area of special interest in the southChina provinces bordering its recently established protectoratesin China's former vassal kingdom, Tonkin andAnnam-Vietnam.The U.S. felt left out ofthis whirlligig of spheres ofinfluenceover the world's largest population and market. Whenwar with Spain was declared in 1898, before u.S. forcescould cross the ninety miles to Cuba, Commadore Dewey'ssquadron in Far East waters conquered Manila harbor(May 2, 1898). The U.S. declared its intention to hold theharbor (finally taking the whole Philippines when the nationalistsdid not agree to ceding Manila to the U.S.) andimmediately annexed the Hawaiian Islands (and Wake Islandand Guam) as stepping stones-and military stationstothe China market. Thereafter, the U. S. participated inmilitary expeditions in the Boxer Rebellion against foreigncontrol of China.Finally, a Republic was proclaimed in China in 1911 andthe student radicalism in Chinese schools which had developedfollowing the republican revolution exploded when itwas announced that the Versailles Peace conference of1919had granted America's ally, Japan, a special position inChina. The students' May Fourth Movement was the startingpoint for most ofChina's future radicals, including MaoTse-tung. These young radicals, including Mao, first studiedEuropean anarchist writings because they learned fromthe western press, socialist and non-socialist alike, that theSoviet Revolution was anti-Marxist, since it was supposedlyoriented toward the peasant and not the industrial worker,and therefore was anarchist. [Chow Tse-Tung, May FourthMovement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China,(HarvardUniversity Press, 1960). See also the moving novel byFei-Kan Li (Pa Chin), The Family; and Olga Lang, Pa Chinand His Writings; Chinese Youth between Two Revolutions(Harvard University Press, 1967)]. However, after a fewyears, Third International agents arrived to try to set therecord straight-Lenin and Stalin considered themselvesMarxists.Meanwhile, many of the students.had moved toward aTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

more socialist position due to the overlapping years' longvisits to Chinese universities of Bertrand Russell and JohnDewey. Russell espoused a strongly decentralist philosophyemphasizing the peasants, traditional associations and thefamily, rather than Westernization. John Dewey counteredwith his centralized socialism or industrial democracy inwhich the peasants, traditional associations and the familywould be crushed before the power of Westernization. Themajor focus of the students was to free China from foreigndomination, and they believed that Westernization was anecessity to have the strength to achieve that goal.Meanwhile, many ofthe students went to European universities,where they became communists. The new Chinesecommunist party allied with Chiang Kai-shek against thewar lords. But when Chiang won Shanghai he turned on thecommunists and slaughtered them.Mao Tse-tung, who had opposed the Russian-imposedurban worker strategy, now emerged to lead a peasant basedmovement which survived only by the Long March (discussedin the pro-Mao Red Star over China, by EdgarSnow). When the conflict with Japan expanded in the1930s, Chiang withdrew from the industrial coastal cities tothe interior of China. This involved japan with the Americanmilitary and naval forces stationed in China. From 1901to 1938 the 15th United States Infantry was stationed inTientsin. Over 500 U.S. Marines were stationed in Peking;from 1000 to 2000 Marines were stationed in Shanghai.U.S. Marines were stationed on the ships ofthe U.S. Asiaticfleet which wintered in the Philippines and summered innorth China at the Shantung peninsula. During FranklinRoosevelt's administration, U.S. forces in the Philippineswere ready for short-notice orders to go to China, and severalthousand Marines from the Fleet Main Base at SanDiego were always available for service across the Pacific.The U.S. navy maintained the Yangtze River Patrol and theSouth China Patrol, both of which were composed of gunboats.Chinese nationalism dividesWhen Chiang abandoned the industrial coastal cities to theJapanese, the Nationalist movement split. The liberal capitalistmerchants, bankers and industrialists (left-Kuomintang)who had sought the modernization of China, includingthe ending of landlord tax-collector feudalism andthe recognition of the peasants' right to the ownership oftheir land, remained with their capital and property in thecities. Their leader, Chiang's prime minister, Wang Chingwei,established a left-wing or capitalist government inNanking and became prime minister of a Chinese governmentallied with Japan. Chiang, in the interior, ruled withthe support of the landlord tax-collectors and their sons thearmy officers (right-Kuomintang). Freed from the moneypower of the left or capitalist wing, the landlords begana feudal reaction to re-establish collection of taxes andfeudal dues from the peasants. The peasants turned for helpto the armed force willing to side with them; the communists.When the japanese surrendered, over one hundredthousand American troops were aiding Chiang in takingcontrol ofnorth China's cities, while the communists rushedto consolidate their control over the countryside. Thereafter,the U.S. poured billions in military supplies into theChiang army. But time after time huge American-equippedarmies went over to the communists: the communist commanderssaid they had the best supply system in the world,American supplies which they needed only to capture inorder to have American-made weapons.After the communists captured the capital, Nanking, theAmerican diplomatic staffremained, while the Soviet diplomatsdutifully followed Chiang further and further south.However, when the communists moved the capital to Peking,the Americans refused to move north and finally endeddiplomatic relations. The British, following internationallaw, recognized the new government and benefited from aquarter-century of nearly exclusive trade with China.When the Chinese Communists came to power in October,1949 it was at the end of a long period of conflict internally:the warlords, the japanese, civil war, and, at the beginningof external conflicts, the Korean war to 1953 andFrance's Vietnam war to 1954. The political trials, detentionsand executions are part of the wide area of denial ofcivil liberties in China. Having spent a quarter-century winningthe support ofthe peasants as the basis oftheir victory,the communists faced what became a continuing dilemma-how to relate to the private property attitudes ofthe peasantsand still have political control.In one sense, this was part ofthe broader problem ofhowto conduct a complex economy while attempting to imposepolitical controls on the market. Because inflation had beena major cause of popular disaffection with the Chiang regime(the Nationalist secret police engaged in wholesale executionsof businessmen for violations of the price controlregulations during the runaway inflation), the communistswent out oftheir way to establish a stable monetary system.In order to accumulate capital for industrial developmentthey encouraged savings, and offered interest rates to attractthem. Where industrial firms were nationalized, the formerowners. were given twenty-year interest-paying bonds andwere encouraged to remain as managers at attractive salaries-which became the subject of much criticism at the heightofthe cultural revolution. [The development ofresponses tothe need for market processes to operate the Chinese economyis examined by Dwight H. Perkins, Market Control andPlanning in Communist China (Harvard University Press,1966) and Perkins, ed., China's Modern Economy in HistoricalPerspective (Stanford University Press, 1975).]Agriculture is the base of the Chinese economy. Whenthey came to power the Chinese communists rejected theSoviet model of using agriculture as merely a means foramassing capital for industrialization. Instead, the communistsviewed the peasants as the potential mass ofconsumersfor industrial products. Thus, even in the parts of agriculturein which communes were established, the peasantsowned their own homes, work tools, domestic animals, individualplots of land and bank deposits. Kenneth Walker[Planning in Chinese Agriculture, Socialisation and the PrivateSector, 1956-1962] has noted the discouragement producedby comparison of collective agriculture in the SovietUnion to its private peasant farming. With a high proportionof Soviet dairy and vegetable production in the privatesector, the Chinese emphasized voluntary participation incooperatives and higher prices for farm goods.During the 1950s there was a process of loosening controlson the peasants; although rice and grain lands weremore likely to be under cooperative or collective operation,vegetables and livestock were mainly private. In Kiangsuprovince in 1957 only 3% of pigs were collectively owned.In the january, 1966 Asian Survey Michael Okenberg notedthat there had been a large increase in hog production due toprice incentives to private hog producers. 37FEBRUARY 1979

Walker noted that private plots were larger in socialistcollectives (in order to encourage peasants to voluntarilyestablish collectives) than in the non-socialist cooperatives.In both, the peasants had much independence, but the collectivesintroduced profit-sharing in order to encourageproduction.The great leap backwardHowever, in mid-1958, Mao introduced his most fantasticundertaking: The Great Leap Forward. In addition totrying to develop industry without capital investment intools and machinery by emphasizing labor intensive methods,he undertook a push to collectivize agriculture andforce peasants into more collectivized "communes?' Politicalincentives were substituted for market price incentives. Theset-backs on all fronts ofthe economy suffered by China (towhich was added the withdrawal of Soviet technical assistance)led to the de facto retirement of Mao from politicalleadership. Mao left the presidency and limited himself toideological work as Party Chairman. In a February 1959"During 1978, the Chineseleadership visited Yugoslavia,discovered the ntarket road tosocialisnt, and eDlbarked on aradically ntarket-oriented pathof econontic developntent?'conference it was noted that the public sector could not produceenough pigs to provide fertilizers for the soil, and so amajor effort was established to encourage private pig rearingby price incentives. In the Spring of 1961 the party linewas declared to be: "take privately reared pigs as the mainsource, publicly reared pigs as the auxiliary."From 1960 there were calls in the party press for the restorationofprivate plots where they had been collectivized,or making the private plots large enough for realistic farming(the pre-1956 plots were viewed as the standard size).The private farm plot was declared to be the desire of thevastmass ofthe population and that the party had to accedeto this popular demand. A debate ensued as to whether theprivate farm plot was socialist or feudal in character. Someparty experts held that the private farm plot was "one formof socialism?' In China everything backward is viewed asfeudal; everything modern and productive is viewed as "socialist':Thus, industry and price incentives are viewed as"socialist" and inefficient methods as "feudal'~ Most partyspokesmen held that private farm plots were "individual" incharacter and did not involve exploitation oflabor. And being"individual" they were "socialist?' During 1961 the privateplots were the dominant form and have survived assuch since then. Teng Hsiao-p'ing advocated individualfarming and expansion of free markets (legalizing blackmarkets).38 In January, 1965, Ch'en Yun, who had opposed the mili-tant collectivization plans in agriculture reappeared inpublic life. Ch'en Yun was a member of the seven-memberstanding committee ofthe Communist Party Politburo. Themaintenance of the non-collectivist emphasis in Chineseagriculture continued during the Cultural Revolution whichbegan to emerge in late 1965, in large measure in responseto the escalation of the American intervention on China'sborder in Vietnam.The central thread runnIng through the ideology of thecultural revolution was the assault on dogmatism whetherin the government or the party. In particular, the culturalrevolution began as an ideological attack on state power, aspersonified by President Liu Shao-chi. His major work,"Howto be a Good Communist;' was viewed as the epitomeof the ideology of bureaucracy: obedience to power is extolledand submission to the communist party and its decisionsare given priority over truth. At the beginning of thecultural revolution, K.S. Karol, (China, The Other Communism,1967), quoted Mao: "if Marxism-Leninism couldbe summed up in a single sentence, it would be: to rebel isjustified?' Karol concluded that "Mao would like to institutionalizedisobedience of superior authorities, thus erectinga permanent barrier against the men in power."International affairs played a central role inthe'origins ofthe cultural revolution. Liu Shao-chi and his protege, Pekingmayor Peng Chen, in the split with the Soviet Union,had sought to encourage the sectarian formation of rivalnew communist parties. In addition, emphasis was placedon support ofstate power, especially in relations with Asianand African countries. The Indonesian army coup of September1965 triggered Mao's return to power via the CulturalRevolution. Defense Minister Lin Piao's "People'sWar" (1965) became the guide book of the cultural revolution.Lin recommended the wholehearted application of"national democratic revolutions" which embrace the revolutionarymiddle classes-"patriotic and anti-imperialistdemocrats"-on the principle of the "broadest possibleunited front" and of "winning over the middle forces andisolating the reactionary forces?' Premier Chou En-Iai, whohad been the political instructor of Lin Piao at the militaryacademy, sought to develop a new foreign policy in the contextofthe recent failures and in the context ofthe Americanescalation in Vietnam.One ofthe results of the Cultural Revolution was to turnthe major cities and their industrial complexes over to armydirection. The substitution ofthe authoritarianism and dogmatismof the military for those of the party made a badsituation worse. For if the party at times was forced to dealwith the reality of the public's opinion and consumer preference,these were realities totally absent from the army'sfunctions. The chairman ofthe state planning commission,Politburo member, Po I-po, one ofthe most knowledgeableeconomists in China.with a deep understanding of pricemechanisms, was purged, as was the secretary-general ofthe Chinese communist party, Teng Hsiao-p'ing. Attacks onPo I-po reacheda high pitch by August, 1970. Thereafter,Chou En-Iai regained a leading role in the economic area,and sought to re-establish proper accounting in industry.After the death of Marshall Lin Piao (September, 1972)while Mao's wife and her associates dominated the ideologicalarena, Chou En-Iai moved toward more rational industrialpolicies. A former associate of Teng Hsiao-p'ing, YuCh'iu-li became head ofthe state planning commissions, (October,1972) and Teng re-appeared in public in April,1973.Teng was formally rehabilitated in January, 1974.THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

Enter the Nixon administrationIn July, Henry Kissinger visited China (secretly) for thefirst time. In November, China was admitted to the UnitedNations. In February, 1972 Richard Nixon visited China,and with Chou issued the Shanghai Communique, the basisfor subsequent U.S.-Chinese relations. In September,Japanand China established full diplomatic relations, and soonChina was in close contact with the European CommonMarket as well as the major European industrial countries:England, France and West Germany. Strong emphasis wasplaced on using foreign technology in order to modernizeChinese industry.In January, 1975 Chou En-Iai announced new plans forindustrialization and modernization. In October, Hua Kuofengemerged to prominence by presenting the report oftheNational Conference on Learning from Tachai in Agriculture(Tachai is China's major oil field in Manchuria). InJanuary, 1976 Chou died, with his memorial speech presentedby Teng Hsiao-p'ing. In February a new campaignagainst Teng was launched, and he was purged anew inApril. Hua Kuo-feng was appointed premier in place ofChou on the basis of his leading role in agricultural policy.After Mao's death in September, Hua was named partychairman and Mao's widow and her associates were denouncedfor dislocating economic development, especiallywith reference to agricultural production. In December aSecond National Conference on Agriculture was held. InJanuary, 1977 official policy emphasized "prosperity;' "politicalliveliness;' the blooming of a "hundred flowers;' and"comprehensive modernization:' In August, the 11th PartyCongress set guidelines for economic development underHua's leadership and re-rehabilitated Teng.During 1978 the Chinese leadership embarked on a radicallymarket-oriented path of economic development. HuaKuo-feng, party chairman and premier, visited Yugoslaviaand discovered the market road to socialism. The clear intentionofthe Chinese leadership is to go beyond the limitedeconomic liberalization introduced to Soviet Russia byKhrushchev. It is aiming at the much more market-directedYugoslav model. As Fox Butterfield (New York TimesMagazine, Dec. 10,1978) noted: "hardly a week goes bywithout a Chinese delegation trooping off to study someaspect ofthe Yugoslav experience, from its system ofworkerself-management to its wide-open tourist policy.... In recentweeks, the world's leading bankers have been virtuallytripping over themselves in the lobby ofthe old Peking Hotelin a scramble to help finance these enormous purchases,which would mount up to $60 billion:' With the almost $50billion owed to U.S. banks by Russia and the Soviet bloc,such credits could severely test the West's financial structure.Bank of America executive vice-president, James Wieslersays that although little is known of China's financial situation,there is intense competition among foreign banks toprovide loans.Recently Peking Review has published articles which revealthe new direction of the Chinese economy: "RefutingYao Wen-yuan's Fallacy that the Principle 'To Each Accordingto His Work' Breeds Bourgeoisie;' by Su Shao-chich andGeng Lan-jui (February 10, 1978), and "On the Question ofProfit;' by Hsu Ti-hsin (February 24, 1978). Hsu said thatthrough profit "we can check the economic results of the~J>AtttfN6JJCDFEBRUARY 197939

management ofour enterprises and evaluate their contributionsto the state, thereby prompting the enterprises to makecareful calculations, practice business accounting, reducecosts and increase profits:' Hsu says that a socialist economyshould not "onesidedly" stress profit, but should putplanning first and price second. His conclusion, however,strongly affirms thatsocialist enterprises must first of all ensure the q~ality of their productsand try to improve it continually. With this as the precondition,they do their best to increase production, practice economy,cut down the cost and make more profits. It is quite obvious thatthe greater the amount ofsuch profits the better, for it is a proofthatthese enterprises are operating efficiently and are making greatercontributions to the state and people. This has nothing in commonwith "putting profit in command:'"In recent weeks, the world'sleading bankers have beenvirtually tripping overthel11selves in the lobby of theold Peking Hotel in a scral11bleto help finance China'senorl11OUS new purchases?'In Peking Review, December 8, 1978, an article on "TechnologyImport and Self-Reliance" quoted Mao: "Rely mainlyonour own efforts while making external assistance subsidiary,break down blind faith, go in for industry, agricul-ture and technical and cultural revolutions independently,do away with slavishness, bury dogmatism, learn from thegood experience of other countries conscientiously and besure to study their bad experience too, so as to draw lessonsfrom it. This is our line:' China is embarking on a vast programof importing technology from abroad. American andEuropean companies are seeking contracts with China. TheJapanese are being favored by the Chinese as the preferredtrading partner, because Japan does not have a large militaryestablishment threatening China (and without a majormilitary budget it has lower costs than the U.S. ).China News Analysis, July 14 and 21, 1978, discussed themovement toward profits in the Chinese economy, includingthe National Conference on Turning Losses into Gainsby Strengthening the Economic Management of the Enterprises.Some of·the economjc reports regarding the economyfrankly describe the gap between planning and reality.There may be a movement toward calling the goal of productionfor profit,"the plan;' and allowing the realization ofprofitability as the fulfillment. Planning now refers to imposingthe discipline ofprices on consumers, including stateagencies and even the army. Many of the new ideas areemerging from the Academy of Social Sciences, headed byHu Ch'iao-mu, a major adviser of Teng. China NewsAnalysis, July 14, 1978, concludes: "It is quite possible thatthere are men in Peking who see that the present system ofplanned economy is not working and cast a furtive glance atthe system in force in Yugoslavia. Certainly Cheng Ming, anew monthly magazine vociferous in support ofTeng Hsiaop'ing,which is appearing in Hong Kong under communistauspices, had in its 8th issue a long article praising to theskies the self-management of the factories of Yugoslavia:'Leonard P. Liggio is an associate editor of LR.40NowAvaIlable:The Right and Wrongof Compulsionby the State, and Other EssaysBy Auberon HerbertHilaire Belloc: Edwardian RadicalBy John P. McCarthyThe Servile StateBy Hilaire BellocLlbertylWss LIber~ClasslCSBritish political theorist Auberon Herbert (1838-1906) is without equalas a defender of liberty. His writings are eloquent, forceful- and uncompromising.This volume brings together his major and representativewritings, including the title essay, ItA Plea for Voluntaryism," liThe Ethicsof Dynamite," and IISalvation by Force." Edited and with an introductionby Eric Mack. Hardcover $9.00, Softcover $3.50.A perceptive, lucid, and carefully-researched look at Belloc and Britishpolitical history during the Edwardian period, the first years of thetwentieth century. Dr. McCarthy is Assistant Professor of History atFordham University. Hardcover $8.00, Paperback $3.00.A perceptive warning, first published in 1913, of the consequences ofstatism and the effect of socialist doctrine on capitalist society. With anintroduction by Robert Nisbet. IIA landmark of political thought in thiscentury"- Walter Lippmann. Hardcover $8.00, Softcover $2.00.We pay postage on prepaid orders. To order these books, or for a copy of our catalog, write:LibertyPress/LibertyClassics .7440 North Shadeland, Dept. FIBIndianapolis, Indiana 46250THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

BOOKSANDTHEARTSPilgrints'regressTHOMAS SZASZThe Language ofMadness by DavidCoopet; Allen Lane,$4.95. No AmericanEdition.Conversationswith Children byR.D. Laing, AllenLane, $3.95. AmericanEdition: Conversationswith Adamand Natasha, Pantheon,$6.95.IN 1964, COOPERand Laing, thefounding fathers of"anti-psychiatry;' coauthoredReasonand Violence. In1967, Laing contributeda chapter toCooper's Dialecticsof Liberation. Sincethen, theirpathshaveseemingly diverged.I sayseemingly, becauseactually theyhaven't; each hascontinued to writeabout the one thinghe loves-namely,himself. However, each hasdemonstrated his love in differentways.Cooper's style is cant in almostpure form. For specialeffect, he uses oxymorons,such as the farewell in hisprevious book, The Grammarof Living. "My nextbook;' he wrote there, "willbe different. Itwill not be byme?' I am sorry to have toreport that his new book,The Language ofMadness, isstill by him.At least, Cooper is a naiveRousseauian. Au fond, humanbeingsarerich, creative,loving, good, you name it.What'swrongwiththeworldis that all these "goodies"have been stolen from us. Iam not simplifying whatCooper is saying; I am onlysummarizing it. "To act politically;'he asserts, "meanssimply regaining what hasbeen stolen from us, startingwith our consciousness ofour oppression within thecapitalistsystem?'Accordingto Cooper, everything thatmost of us think is bad isreally good, and vice versa.Systematically inverting valuesis Cooper's idea of explainingsocial phenomenaand rectifying their defects.For example: "Madness is acommon social propertythat has been stolen from us,like the reality ofourdreamsand our deaths; we have toget these things back politicallyso thattheybecomecreativityand spontaneity in atransformed society?'Nevertheless, Cooper'swork has certain redeemingqualities that deserve recognition,even respect. Hedoesnot hide where he standsonpolitics, economics, oranything else. Primarily,Cooper is against the freemarket and individualism."Fruit dies on the trees;' heexplains, "because peasantfarmers can't deal with aparasitic market structurewhich stops the fruit thatthey gather meeting themouths of other workerswho supply them in turnbytheir work?' He praisesMarx, "who ·learnt aboutmoney and then learnt howto hate it, how to hate themarket place of exchangevalue .. ?'Conversely, Cooper is forCommunism, victims andthe prefix "anti': Anti-psychiatrywas merely his firstflirtation parleying a prefixinto a career, as thefollowingexamples illustrate: "Antidefinition... is a way ofopening up the definiendum... Anti-classification meansseeking and stating existingdifferences as opposed to enclosingentities in boxes .. :'His new antis amplify hisearlier ones, such as "antiaesthetics;'eulogised in TheGrammar of Living thus:"We have passed the last dayof the 'great' one-nameworks of art and have enteredthe time of communalcreation. Henceforth therewill be no more Beethovens,no more Rembrandts, nomore Tolstoys.... We shallcreate the quotidian Dada,an anti-aesthetics of everydaylife?' Enough? Not forCooper. He has a seeminglyinexhaustible supply ofthings and ideas he wants toinvert. The clitoris is a"stunted penis" said Freud;for Cooper it's a superphallus:"Some psycho-techniciansfind it incomprehensiblewhen I say thatwomen-physiologicallyspeaking [Cooper's emphasisI-havebigger phallusesthan men?' For Freud, thedreamwasthe "royal roadtothe unconscious"; for Cooper,"the dream is the antipsychoanalysis:'FEBRUARY 197941

42Although there is an occasionalwell-turned phraseorwell-observed humanpredicamentin this book, TheLanguage 0/Madness (an utterlymisleading title, ofcourse) is a pitiful piece ofwork. Even as Communistpropaganda, it is primitive."There are;' writes Cooper,articulatinghis recommendationfor social change,"two things to be done:firstly, the final extinguishingof capitalism and the entiremystifying ethos of privateproperty; secondly, thesocialevolutions that ... will producethe cla~sless society:'WhyCooperbelieveswhathe believes is his business.His personal affairs concernus only insofar as he tells usof them, which he does inembarrassing detail. For example,he tells us that he has"no secretary or fixed address':that "there are no examplesto follow, certainlynot mine': that "I was madbriefly, butfor enoughweeksto begin to know a little .. :';and that "one might arguethat the incapacity for homosexualexperience is an'illness' in need of 'treatment'."Such self-disclosuresdon't enhance Cooper's dignity.But, then, Cooperseems to wantto shame himselfin public. He is a religiousfanatic who wants toexpiate his guilt-for what Idon't know, and if I did, Iwould keep the informationto myself. Cooper himselfoffers some clues. "One ofthe critical experiencesofmylife;' he writes about hisfavoritesubject, "was when atthe age offour, at a circus inCape Town, Iburstinto tearsbecause I thought the clownhad been really hurt by thewicked ring master. I couldnot be consoled until theclown came into the audienceto tell me that the hurtwas an illusion, make-belief:'He is still weeping, and isproud ofit.As Cooper's distinctivestylistic flourish is the prefix"anti': so Laing's isrhe blankpage of paper. I think it's inThe Politics a/Experience, in1967, that he first alludes tohis interest in "empty whitesheet(s) of paper": "Fewbooks today are forgivable.Black on the canvas, silenceonthescreen, anemptywhitesheet of paper, are perhapsfeasible:' His recent books,such as Facts 0/Life, Do YouLove Me?, and Conversationswith Children, containlots of"empty white sheets:'Unfortunately, not all ofthepages of his most recentbooks are clean sheets; someare soiled by printer's ink.According to Laing, Conversationswith Children is an"anthology" ofhis conversationswith his own children,which he considers importantbecause "no similar anthologyof dialogues withchildren has been published:'He claims that the"anthology" is authentic andaccurate. Since it's a recordof conversations, the implicationis thatitis a verbatim,or near verbatim, account ofwhatwas said by each speaker."I have added nothing;'says Laing."I am responsiblefor deletions, and I suppose,inevitably, some inadvertentomissions. But I have madeno additions, no embellishments:'How,then,didLaingobtain such a faithfulrecord? "No tape recorderwas ever used;' he hastens toexplain.·"The conversationsin this anthology were writtendown by me from memoryover a six-year period aspartofajournal Ikeep. Theyare all recorded from memory:'Well, either Laing has afantastic memory or hisclaim concerning the absoluteauthenticity of theseconversations is a lie.How does Laing justifypublishing such an ostensiblyintimate diary of hischildren's babblings (or babblingshe attributes to them),thus making a part of theirprivate world public? Heknows, ofcourse, thatdoingso constitutes an invasion·oftheir privacy. But publishingsuch "intimacies [of] familylife;'was permissible, he tellsus, because it "is done withthe full accord ofmy wifeandthe children:' That selfjustificationreveals the fullmeasure ofLaing's uttercontemptfor an ethic of respectfor persons grounded in contract.The children onwhomhe so generously bestows theright to contract range in agebetween three and eight. If afather took sexual libertieswith children ofthat age andthen told us that they (andtheir moth.er!) consented toit, we would regard his selfjustificationas adding insultto injury.Why did Laing write thisbook? Having written severalbooks about the unhappycommunicationscharacteristic of other people'sfamilies, Laing feltready, he says, to present"theother side ofthestory...the language of the happydialogue of intelligent beings.. :'Where was hegoingto find such "beings"? In hisown family, where else? "Itis;' he writes gravely, "agreatpleasure and relief for me topresent these dialogueswhich express so much lightheartednessand serious delight... In the followingpages, we are able to observethe emotional and cognitivedevelopment oftwo childrenwith unimpaired facultiesunfold within the interlaceand interweave of relationswith adults whom they donot fear and whom they likeas they are liked:'The entries in the bookrange from the trivial to theoffensive. Many entries aresimply empty; for example,a third of a page is occupiedby this one: "December1973: Natasha wants sellotapefor Xmas:' Among theentries I consideroffensive isthis one: "Daddy: What wasthefirst thing you saw whenyou came out of mummy'stummy? Natasha: Mummy'spussa, that's the first thing Isaw when I came out ofmummy's tummy:'TheentryIlikebest (whichalso takes up a third of apage) reads: "Natasha (agedsix): Did you write thisbook? (Do You Love Me?).Daddy: Yes. Natasha:They've printed it very well(turning the pages) there'shot much on the paper.Look, there's hardly anythingon that page. Or thatpage. There's the littlest I'veever seen. I think this is thesilliest book I've ever seen:'What are we to make ofConversations· with Children?It's notreally a book; itonlylookslike one. Therein,perhaps, lies the· answer tothe question I posed. Thebookis a joke, a put-on. Intoxicatedwith himself,Laing is playing not only beforehis audience, but alsowith it. His seemingly multifacetedpersonality has nowfused into a single role-­namely, that ofclown. PeterMezan, who knows Laingpersonally, has actuallycharacterised Laing in such away: "In the mind's eye,under the magical sign ofthecaduceus, stands a gaunt,pixielike man in the garb ofprophet-acid at his righthand, revolution at his left,his headhaloedwiththeclearlight ofan Orientalparadise,his eyes intimating madness-crushing beneath hisavenging foot the serpent ofthe Western rationalist tradition... In· a single evening Ihave seen him run the gamutof emotions, taking on onedistinct person after another,even changing sex, and ineach one appearing to bewholly himself:'How ironic, but how fitting.Laing, the clown, theMarcelMarceauofpsychiatry.Cooper, the violated"madman;' the vulnerable,frightened child. The foolerand the fooled. What a perfectpantomime of madnessand mad-doctoring! Cooperhas a big heartthatbleeds forvictims, especiallyofhis ownimaginings. His compassionhas become cancerous andhas all but destroyed him.Laing, ontheotherhand,hasa good nose for business-inparticular, for selling his dramatizedimpersonations ofhimself. So far he has soldhimself as student ofschizophrenia,theoretician ofantipsychiatry,charismaticTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

healerofmadness, existentialphilosopher, NewLeftistsocialcritic,guruofLSD, Buddhistmonk,andradical criticofthe family. Now he is posingas devoted paterfamilias,basking in "happy" communicationswith his children.Cooperis oftenwrongheaded,but is honest. Laingis often level-headed, but ishe ever honest?Thomas Szasz's latest book isThe Myth ofPsychotherapy. Heteaches psychiatry at the StateUniversity of New York's UpstateMedical Center in Syracuse,and contributes frequentlyto LR. The present review isreprinted by permission fromthe British magazine, The Spectator.Doctoringthe figuresMARSHALLE.SCHWARTZDefective Medicine byLouise Lander. Farrar, Strausand Giroux, 242 pp., $10.Pain andProfit-ThePoliticsofMalpractice bySylviaLawand Steven Polan, Harperand Row, 305 pp., $12.95.The Malpractitioners byJohn Guinther, AnchorPress/Doubleday, 347pp., $10.00..DURING A FIVE WEEKperiod of 1976, many doctorsin Los Angeles countywithheld their services inprotest against the soaringmalpractice insurance billsthey had received. A. mostcurious and disturbing sequelto this story appeared inthe newspapers last October:During this period,when surgery declined bynearly 60 percent, there wasa significant drop in thedeath rate in Los Angeles,climbing again (from 19.2to26 per 100,000 population)during the first five weeksafter the doctors went backto work.If these figures are a truereflection of the state ofAmerican medicine, thenperhaps the continuing malpracticecrisis is the bestOne-third of all surgical deaths and half of all surgical complications are probably preventable.medication possible for the procedures; the contingency Guinther's revelations abouthealth ofthe American public.fee system for attorneys; the insurance industry'sUnfortunately, the sad overgenerous jury awards; quasi-legal financial ma­state of American medical poor underwriting practices;nipulations, and Law andpractice-as evidenced bythe use of increases in Polan's clear and exhaustivestatistics like those from Los malpractice premiums to explanations of both theAngeles-and the muchbruitedmake up for insurance com­common law roots of mal­malpractice crisis of panies' stock market losses; practice law and today'sthe 1970s are both symptomsand the foisting off on the tangled legal spiderweb. Butofthe same underlying public and on regulatory neither book-despite occa­malady. Yet the burgeoning agencies ofdeliberately false sional telling observationsstudies of this crisis are devotedandmisleading figures bythe which, inexplicably, are nev­mainly to detailed insurance industry-rather er followed up-addressessymptomatologies-identifyingthan to root causes. eitherofthe fundamental de­such ailments as the And that's what journalist fects which have distortedoverspecialization ofAmericanJohn Guinther and attorneys American medicine: the unincreasingmedicine; the ever­Sylvia Law and Steven Polan endingregulation byfederal,use of hospitals offer us in their new books state, and local governments,rather than the home or doctor'son malpractice-along withand the absorption ofoffice to treat patients; their own personal, statist the medical profession intothe poor self-regulation of solutions to this peculiarly the American corporatethe medical profession, with American problem. To be state.its high yield ofincompetent sure, both of these studies Defective Medicine bypractitioners and unnecessaryare overflowing with useful Louise Lander is more diffi­surgical and diagnostic information, particularly cult, ifnotimpossible,tocat-FEBRUARY 197943

egorize-exasperatingly so,at times. For Lander delvesfurther than any ofthe otherauthors toward finding thefirst causes. And so many ofher analyses, her descriptions,her polemics are tantalizinglylibertarian in tone.In fact, there is nothingin herbook, if examined from theappropriate perspective,that is antilibertarian innature. Yet she, too, neverquite arrives at her apparentgoal, never names the statistexcess that continues to leadAmerican medicine to thebrinkofdisaster, butonlydescribesit. The libertarianreader is left with the impressionofsomeone giving an incrediblycompelling descriptionofanelephant,butbeingunable to call it "elephant"because she just doesn'tknow the word.Forlibertarians, this is nota major defect, however, forwe are able to supply theneeded words, name thenames ourselves, once weare presented with all thevital details from the properperspective. And that is atask Lander performs admirably.Her approach is delineatedin the book's subtitle,Risk, Anger, and the MalpracticeCrisis. Observingthat only a small fraction ofincidents that could be consideredacts of malpracticeever result in a claim beingfiled-much less ending inpayment to the claimant­Lander points out that a secondfactor must also be presentbefore a malpracticeclaim occurs: The patientmust be angry-at a doctor,at a hospital, at a nurse orattendant,at somebody. And,Lander argues, those factorsthat cause anger in the patientsalso force patients toundergo more procedures,both diagnostic and therapeutic,that put them at riskofinjury.To Lander, a major underlyingcause ofthe problem isthe ideology ofmodern medicalpractice, an ideologythat"hasverylittletodo with44 the human experience ofbe-ing sick;' Instead of dealingwith the whole personhowthe illness affects whatthe person does, how whatthe patient does affects theillness, and how the patienthimself can affect the illness~theideology of modernmedicine "has muchmore to do with the needs ofphysicians for a conceptualizedframework that willfocus and simplify theirworkand thatwill justify thesegmented, episodic, superspecialized,individualisticcharacter of their work arrangement?'In other words,physicians have aimed atconstructing an ideology, amedical model, if you will,thatjustifies thecorporatizationofAmerican medicine.The resulting construct is"the biomedical model ofmedicine":the notion that a given diseasecan be explained by a distinct,well-defined biochemical orphysical'abnormality... thegeneral assumption that adisease reflects disordered biologicalmechanisms that can ultimatelybe described in terms ofchemistry and physics and thatare independent ofsocial behavioror intrapsychic processes.The model is reductionistic, explainingcomplex phenomenaby invoking a single ultimateprinciple; dualistic, reflecting aseparation of mind and body;and mechanistic, reflecting aview of the human body as amachine.This model provides a"theoretical" basis for thespecialization of medicineorgan by organ, and for thestructure of insurance reimbursement,procedure byprocedure. There is no placeleft to view the patient as awhole, with this fragmentationleading to higher riskandgreater alienation for thepatient. Ultimately,this"biomedicalmodelmakesofdoctorsthe priests of a secularreligion, a variant of themore general secular faiththattechnologyis the answerto all worldly ills and thatwhatis newer is by definitionbetter." That piece of commentaryby Lander soundsas if it could have been liftedwhole from one of Dr.Thomas Szasz's attacks.And, as with any corporatemodel, the "theory" isself-aggrandizing and se1£perpetuating.As a result,you will rarely find a patientand his doctor discussing"his backache, headaches,or bellyaches in the contextof his life situation;' so thatthey could be dealt with bythe patient attempting tochange "his job, his marriage,his neighborhood, hisdiet, his activities, orhis geQ.­eral manner of relating toother people?' Instead, thebiomedical model protectsthe vested medical interestsby refusing to look at the patientas a whole. Otherwise,Lander remarks,The physician would lose notonly income from return visitsbut also the psychological gratificationof feeling that the patientis dependent on his professionalexpertise. The pharmaceuticalindustrywouldnotonlylose a participant in the immediatesense but would possiblyalso lose a participant in a lifelongsymbioticrelationshipwiththat industry that most peopleenterintomuch toitsprofit. Thewhole referral structure of specialists,diagnostic equipment,and hospitals would suffer a lossof both income and the exaltedstatusithascometobeaccorded.As a result the "healing"relationship dies-the"trust;' the "altruistic concern;'eventhe"nonrational"elements identified by Szaszin his dissections of modernpsychotherapy. What is leftis medicine as a commodity,andthedoctor as a corporateexecutive (aided by theproddingof physicians' journalsand professional managementfirms). This approachmust inevitably increase thechances for a malpracticesuit, for "if the patients seemedical treatment sold likegoods and services they buyin the commercial arena;'Lander declares, "then it isonly natural that patientsfeel anger and seek economicredress when the medicalproduct or service turns outto be in some sense defective?'Commodificationofmedicinehas another dangerousramification: the standardizationof a professionwhich, above all others,mustbe individualized if it isto be truly effective. All thiswould be unthinkable withoutthe biomedical model,for itis relatively easyto standardizean organ or a "diagnosis-and-agecombination;'but impossible to standardizethe whole person.And standardizationinevitablygoes hand-in-handwith regulation-whethergovernment-imposed, orself-imposed and governmentsupported. For if aphysician and his colleaguesare trying to standardizetheir treatments of various"disease entities;' using a fallacioustheory as the basis oftheir action, how can theyreply to thepatientsofa nonstandardpractitioner, onewho refuses to dress in theirgarment cut from wholedoth?Both Guinther, in TheMalpractitioners, and LawandPolan, in Pain andProfit,address the subject ofregulation,as it affects both medicalpractice and the insuranceindustry. But whileboth books highlight manyof the unavoidable consequencesof both regulationand official monopolies (theonly kind that can ever bemaintained), none ofthe authorsgives up on regulationand legislation as tools thatwill ultimately, somehow,solve the malpractice mess.ThusLaw andPolan drawthe following picture of therelationship between today'smedical profession and atrue free market:Theassumption ofa free marketfor services is basic to ourpoliticaland economic system. It isbasedontheconceptthatpeoplecannot have everything theywant, and the concept that noone knows what is best for individualsbetter than they dothemselves. These principles,whatever validity they may havein the general economy, have littleapplicationtophysicians'services....Theinherent difficultyof informed consumer choice·isTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

made worse by professional restrictionson the disseminationof information about alternativemedical care. The medicalprofession closely controls thesupply of medical services. Forall of these reasons, the laws ofsupply and demand do no assureThe biomedical model which has corporatized medicine leaves no place to view the patient as a whole.that the supply ofphysicianswillcorrespond to people's needs formedical care.That's a pretty fair descriptionof a state-endorsedmonopoly, where controlover newproviders' entryintobusiness is in the hands ofcurrent providers. Guinthergets more specific. In discussingforeign medical graduates(FMGs) and the rolethey play in allaying the apparentshortage of physiciansin this country, heobserves:The vacuum in medical servicesthe FMGs filled was one createdand maintained by Americanmedical schools under policiesestablished by the AMA. . . .The AMA maintains thatenrollmentlimitation has been beneficial,thatbecause ofit the UnitedStates enjoys a"superlativemedicalsystem:'... Competitivereasons, however, are probablydominant. The restrictive admissionspolicy was adopted bythe AMA in the 1930s whenphysician income had declinedprecipitately due to the Depression.At that time doctors reasonedthat if enrollments wereheld back, there'd be more patientmoney to go around forthose already in practice, andthere seemed to be no reason toabandon this attractive thesiswhen the post-War boom yearsarrived. Around that time a neweconomic motive evidenced itselfas increasing numbers ofmedical students began to specializein surgery, where their incomeswould be 25-50 percenthigher than in general practice.Since too many surgeons meanttoo small a slice of the pie foreveryone, the answer was againto keep enrollments down.It was not until the federalgovernment began handingoutgrantsto medical schoolsfor each student they acceptedthat the system was broken.As Guinther puts it,"ithas been this federal bribery,not any desire on the part ofAmerican schools to produceenough doctors to meetAmerican medical needs,that instigated the recent increasein American medicalschool enrollment."Naturally, when you aredealingwith a state-supportedmonopoly, all the incentivesfor quality of serviceand cost-effectiveness thatthe free market imposes perforcedisappear. One consequenceis that it is nearly impossiblefor a physician tolose his (state-granted) righttopractice becauseofincompetence;even in states wheredisciplinary machinery exists,the profession hasturned a short run into asteeplechase course by addingobstacles whereverpossible.For example: In NewYork, Law and Polan note,"nine separate administrativereviews must be completedbefore a doctor's licensecan be revoked;' andtwo judicial appeals are possibleeven after all that. "It iswidely acknowledged, evenin professional medical circles,that state medicalboards have done a whollyinadequate job of findingand disciplining chronicallyincompetent physicians,"they add.Some high-ranking stateand federal officials have estimatedthat as many as fivepercent of all active doctorsare "definablyincompetent;'Guinther points out. Yet asofthe beginning of1976 "incompetence,negligence, ormalpractice was a groundsfor revocation or even suspensionof license in onlytwenty-three states, so that,throughout most of thecountry, no matter how inepthe is, a doctor has noworry that he will lose hislicense for those reasons,even temporarily." Not surprisingly,he adds, only some430 doctors each year (barelyone-tenthofonepercentofthose in practice) "receivenotification ofanykindfroma state license board aboutthe way they practicemedicine, and the overwhelmingmajority of thosecommunications cite thedoctor for advertising hisservices or misprescribingnarcotics, not for any negligencein his practice." Lawand Polan report only 134revocations throughout theUnited States in the threeyearperiod 1973-75.In general, malpractice insurancerates are based onlyon the doctor's location, specialty,andwhetherornotthecompany has paid a claimagainst that doctor. Sincewhat little information thatis gathered about physicianincompetence is neither centralizednor readily availablein anyform, doctors who areat particularly high risk ofmalpractice cannot, as arule, be identified by insur- 45FEBRUARY 1979

46ers. As a result, Law andPolan state,competent and conscientiousdoctors, who are in themajority,must pay malpractice premiumswhich reflect not only their ownrisks but also the risks ofthe majorityof physicians who are addicted,incompetent, or dishonest.All the evidence indicatesthat a small proportion of themedical profession is responsiblefor avery large portion ofthe"The state-supportedntedicalntonopoly has ntade it nearlyintpossible for a physician tolose his right to practice becauseof incontpetence."rapidly increasing malpracticepremium.Guinther correctly observesthat hospitals havebeen doing at least as poor ajob of quality control overmedical care as have the stateboards-especially importantsince the site of mostmalpractice incidents is thehospital. He quotes a 1970HEW study on malpracticeto show that although onlyone-third of all hospitalscould have expected noclaimsagainstthemthatyearifmalpractice cases were distributedrandomly, in factmore than two-thirds had noclaims filed. Thus, a smallminority of all hospitalsmust be doing some thingsverywrongindeed. Thislackof control also helps to explainsuch astounding figuresas an estimate by aHouse of Representativescommittee that in 1974, 17percent of the 14 millionelective operations performedwere unnecessaryleadingto nearly 12,000deaths. Or the report of theAmerican College of Surgeonsandthe American SurgicalAssociation that onethirdof the 245 surgicaldeaths and half the nearly1700 surgical complicationsstudied were preventable.Neither Lander nor Guintheroffers proposals on alleviatingthis particular as-pect ofour national medicalconundrum. LawandPolan,however, rely. on the timetestedfallacy of letting thefederal government takecharge. Since theJoint Committeeon the Accreditationof Hospitals hasn't seen to itthatits memberhospitals adhereto the uniform standardsthey profess,"we needa national, publicly accountableagency to set and applystandards for hospitals;'Law and Polan declare.They blithely ignore the factthat regulation of statesupportedmonopolieswhetherbythestateorbytheindustry itself-has benefited·only the ry1onopolies.When the state outlaws freecompetition, there is little incentiveleft for improvingthequality of one's product orservice. They are onthe righttrackwhen they observe that"these reforms, while ofsome use, will be of limitedeffect so long as the basicorganizational structuresformedical-care delivery are sorigidly hierarchical." Butthey fail to see thatthereasonthe hierarchy acts as an obstacleto "reform" (in thiscase, improved quality) isthat it is cast in the mold ofthe corporate state.If the medical professionas a whole has no vested interestin improving the standardofcare, who does? Is itthe insurance industry,which must pay for so manypreventableerrors? Farfromit, according to the dataGuinther, Law, and Polanpresent-the epitome ofhow state "regulation" benefitsonly the regulated industry.While the medical profession'sregulatory agenciesseem to know what's wrongwith their industry, althoughthey do little to correct it,state insurance commissions-accordingto the picturepainted by Guintherareeasy marks for the insurancecompanies' confidencegame. Typical suckers, theytake the companies' figuresas gospel and then play thegame by the rules their opponentshave established.The only losers, of course,are the people.In such fields as life,health, and automobile insurance,competition acts asa barrier to such flim-flamgames. But various factorshave createdmonopolymarketsfor malpractice underwriters,andhere such tacticsthrive, Guinther reveals. Atypical example is the manipulationof loss reserves.These are funds set asideagainst unresolved.claims,so thatevenifa claim mustbepaid, the company can earninterest on the money duringthe two, three, or even sevenyears the claim is being negotiatedand litigated. Becauseloss reserves are legally consideredto be liabilities, suchfunds are not taxable, Guintherpoints out.Hence, the more that goes intothe loss reserve, the less tax thecompany pays. Moreover, sincecompanies are permitted to useloss reservesfor interest-earningpurposes, the more thatisputintothem, the larger the company'ssource of tax-free investmentcapital.Inflatingthe loss reserve also hasanother value for an insurancecompany. Whenever it is seekinga rate increase before a state insurancecommission, it is permittedto prove its need not onlyin terms of actual payments toclaimants, but also by theamount that has been set asidefor future payments. If this figureis exaggerated, the company'sclaims position looksworse than it is, and it is morelikely to get the change it wantsthan ifithadpresented atruthfulpicture. Once the rate increase isobtained, the company can thenre-reserve accurately, shiftingmoney in this fashion back intosurplus.Since insurance commissionersgenerally come totheir jobs from the insuranceindustry-the old story ofthe industryregulatingitself,even when the state is apparentlydoing the regulating­"someofthem are notas vigi­1ant about company practicesas the public mighthope:' Even if they were,Guinther explains, theywould have great difficultyproving the companies' figureswrong, becausethe commissionersjust .don't havethe actuarial staffstoprovideindependent evaluations.How much overreservingis going on? One group ofPennsylvania doctors, fightinga 200-plus percent· increasein malpractice insurancerates by ArgonautInsurance, hired a privateactuaryto investigate. Thestudy found that the company"hadoverreserved-by100 percent-137 of 139consecutive claims closedbetween May 1975 andMarch 1976:' This exaggeratedfigure for projected losseshadbeen used to substantiatethe tripled insurancerates..A related practice isthatofreservinglosses for incidentseven before a claim isfiled. These cases arise whena doctor reports an incidentto his insurance carrier becausehe feels a claim mightoccur. A study by HEWfound that in some 40 percentof such cases, the injuredparty never makes anyeffort to seek damages."Therefore," concludesGuinther,"to the extent thatthese non-asserted claimsare assigned dollar values,the company doing so isshowing losses on its booksthat it never incurs, and atthe same time is showing aseriously inflated picture tothe public of the actual frequencyatwhich malpracticeclaims occur." One result ofthis practice, Law and Polanreport, is that, as of 1976,"malpractice insurance profits,without considering reservesfor unreported claims,had risen to 20.1 percent, ascontrasted to industry-wideprofits on all lines [of insurance]of4.3 percent:'THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

Perhaps the most damningevidenc~ of the complicityof insurance commissionersin this con game ispresented byLawandPolan.1975 was the prime year ofthe malpractice insurancecrisisin the United States, withcompanies demanding-andgetting-massive rate increasesbecause of claimedlosses. So in December of1976 a committee ofthe NationalAssociation of InsuranceCommissioners met toconsider a report preparedby its staff on the profitabilityof each line of insurancein each state.The report disclosed the explosiveinformation that malpracticeinsurance, in the year of theindustry's "crisis;' was, on thewhole, a profitable line for theindustry. While the operatingprofit (which measures incomefrom premiums and investmentsagainst losses, expenses, andtaxes) for all lines of insurancehad been 1 percent in 1975, formalpractice insurance it hadbeen 9 percent.... Most of thestate commissioners who makeup the association had previouslyaccepted the industry'sposition that malpractice was alosing proposition and had, accordingly,approved substantialrate increases for both 1975 and1976. Hence, disclosure of thisinformation could prove asource of great embarassmente... The committee votednot to release the report, thoughmany state departments werethen considering 1977premiumrequests.But what else can you expectwhen the main purposeof state regulation of insurance"has been to prevent insolvency;'Law and Polanclaim? "'Prior approval ofrates, for example, is not intendedto keep premiumslow, but rather to assure thatcompanies will be able tomeet all future policy obligations."But the insurancecompanies have gone far beyondmere solvency in settingmalpractice premiumrates, if the detailed calculationsof income, expenses,and losses presented byGuinther are anywhere nearthe mark: According to hisfigures, in the period 1970-76 inclusive, "the industryprofits . . . reached over $1billion . .. or almost 30 percenton premium incomecompared to the 5 percentprofit margin the industryitselfsays it tries to maintain."If the potential for thismassive hoax existed allalong, why did the insuranceindustry wait until the mid­1970s to perpetrate it? Theprecipitous stock market declineof 1973-74 is theanswer Guinther gives. Insurancecompaniesroutinelyinvested their legal reservesin the market. As long as theDow Jones Index continuedto climb during the late1960s and early 1970s, thispractice produced substantialprofitsin thewayofcapitalgains and dividends.Many companies tried to"buy" business-to get morepremium income they couldinvest-because any underwritinglosseswouldbemorethan made up by marketgains.Then the bubble burst.The Dow fell from over1,000 in 1972 to the low800s in early 1974 to a bottomof607 in the third quarterofthat year. As Guintherrelates:In 1974 the combination of risingclaims and inflation causedcasualty underwriting losses estimatedat $1.8 billion, a situationmade desperate by the factthat the stock market losses forthatyear alone reached $3.3 billion.As a result, the insurers beganto sell off their stock holdingsfor whatever they could getin an effort to achieve cash balancesfor their upcoming annualstatements, in that way hopefullykeeping stockholders unawareof the real size of thelosses that were being sustained.Unfortunately for them, thelargest scale selling occurred atthe very bottom ofthe market...It was during the year that thestock market .crisis was at itsworst thatmalpracticepremiumincome rose from $500 millionto $1 billion, and in the year followingclimbed another $500million. Was there a connection?..There was one malpractice insurerthat didn't ask for big rateincreases between 1974 and1976.... The lone holdout... ,the only company that writesonly malpractice and the onlycompany to admit it makes aprofit doing so... ,had conservativeinvestment policies andtherefore took no bath in thestock market and hadno losses ithad to recoup.... In short, thegamblers, having dissipatedtheir money, demanded that thepeople who had given them themoney in the first place now not"But if the state had notordained what these doctorshave been taught, thetnarketplace would providequality control:'only make good their losses butguarantee them a profit in thefuture.As a result, insurancecommissions approved unwarrantedrateincreasesandstate legislatures changedlaws to meet the insuranceindustry's demands. "Between1974 and 1976;'Guinther asserts, "publicitycaused legislators across theland to enact laws based onfalse and misleading statistics,which eroded citizens'rights by responding to insurancecompany profit prioritiesand to the medical establishment'sfactually unfoundedassertion that theonly way to solve the crisiswas to make it difficult forpeople to sue and limit theamounts of money theycould win."These authors perceivethe true nature of state regulation(or self-regulationwithin a state-endorsedmonopoly) well enough tocite the manyexamplesgivenabove. But somehow thisdoesn't stop either Guintheron the one hand or Law andPolan on the other from offeringmore state regulationas a solution to the malpracticemess.Guinther is less offensive,since he also presents a fewprocedural suggestions thatmight be useful: offeringboth nonbinding arbitrationand "free medical evaluations"in malpractice cases(both paid for with publicfunds, but undoubtedly savingmore than court expenseswould otherwise cost),and having the attorney'scontingency fee added on tothe jury award (so that thejurywon't have to distorttheaward by guessing at whatarrangement the plaintiffand his or her counsel mayhave made). But he also proposesoffering malpracticeinsurance at the same flatrateto all doctors, written byonenationalcompanyoperatingunder federal guidelines.Law and Polan, typical ofcorporate liberals, give uscures more deadly than thedisease. To them, at the"heart of the malpracticeproblemis the fact thatmanypatients receive care fromdoctors and hospitals that iswell below any reasonablestandard." Their "plain answer"is that "more rationalcontrols must be exercisedover who can practice medicine,where they can practice,what specialty proceduresthey can perform,and how they will be paid."Whydo they feel such drasticstrictures are necessary? Because"the incentives providedby the existing marketare destructive ones. Itis notreasonable to assume thatprofessional self-regulationwill run counter to thesemarketincentives. Lawsthatattempt to regulate the excessesoffee-for-service medicinewithout addressing theroot causes of the problemare likely to produce bureaucracyand regulatory redtape that are both ineffectiveand oppressive."With a few small changesin wording, any libertarian47FEBRUARY 1979

48could agree with that last explanation.Of course, Lawand Polan have different"root causes" in mind thanwe do. Yes, it is true thatmanyphysicians placethemselvesabove criticism-notonly by their patients, butalso by their peers. But thisgodlike posture comes notfrom anything inherentlywrong in fee-for-servicemedicine itself, but ratherfrom the fact that doctors,like judges, have been givennearly irrevocable, lifetimesinecures by the state. Theyare left accountable to noonebutthemselves. Butifthestate had not ordained as theone true medicine the meth­0dology these doctors havebeen taught, barring allothers, the marketplacewould provide quality control:Our only yardstickwould be the results a doctorachieved, not the fact that hehad been mystically sanctionedby the state. The recentappearance of local"consumer guides" to doctorsis a first step away fromstate-sanctioned monopoly,a trend thatis boundto growin impact.LawandPolan offernothingbetter regarding the insuranceindustry.Theyclaimthatalthough the malpractice"crisis" was precipitated by theactions of the insurance industry,the only legislative responseon the insurance area has been tofashion immediate solutions toavailability problems, ratherthan to address the underlyingregulatory void which the crisismade apparent. Regulatory reformis absolutely essential, notmerely as a response to the demonstratedexcesses of a few malpracticecarriers, but becausethe entire insurance industry hastaken extreme advantage of theabysmal regulatory job done inthe majority ofstates.... Some,if not all, insurance regulationmust be transferred to the federallevel.Unlike Lander, who can accuratelydescribe an elephantbut doesn't seem toknow the word "elephant;'Law and Polan give us aslightly distorted view ofthesame elephant and then callit rhinoceros. Although theyhave carefully shown howregulation, for medicine andinsurance, is controlledfromwithin the industry and benefitsonly the industry itself,they fail to understand thatthis conditionnecessarilyfollowsfrom all imposed regulation,under any guise.And· that is the malady ofwhich the malpractice crisisis only one symptom amongthousands.Former LR executive editorMarshall E. Schwartz, has beena medical writer for both theSan Francisco Chronicle andPlanned Parenthood, Inc.Readings froOl aChristian genieJOANN ROTHBARDTheJoyful Christian by C.S.Lewis. Macmillan, 235 pp.,$7.95.IN THESE DAYS OFMoonies and Hare Krishnasit is rare to find an intelligentreligious work, and in thesetimes of charismatics, bothCatholic and Protestant, it isuncommon to find an intelligentChristian. C.S. Lewis,who died fifteen years ago,wascertainlya Christiananddefinitely intelligent. Andnot only that: He was sensibleand wrote beautifully.C.S. Lewis was a scholar.He taught Medieval and RenaissanceEnglish literaturefor thirty years at Oxford,and then became a Professorat Cambridge University forthe last nine years ofhis life.Beside the several works hewrote in this field, he was aprolific writer in other areas:theology, children's booksandscience fiction. Strangelythere arepeoplewho arefansofonekindofhis writing andunaware of the rest. TheChronicles of Narnia areseven books for children.The Space Trilogy, ofcourse,is three books of science fiction.Probably his most wellknown religious bookis TheScrewtape Letters, lettersfrom an old devil to a neophytedevil on how to wooChristians from their belief.The Joyful Christian is nota bookwritten by Lewis, buta compilation (by WilliamGriffin) of 127 readings ofLewis, from 17 books. Theselections are short;typicallyabout two pages, but a fewarelongeroras shortas halfapage. They are arranged bytopic,with all ofthepiecesonmiraclesinonesection, all thepieces on prayer in another.Even ifone has read some ofthe books from which thisassortment is taken, it is useful,because of the carefulselection and arrangement.There is also a bibliographyof Lewis's works in the backofthe book."Joyful" is an appropriateword to use in any book ofC.S. Lewis, for the word"joy" was important in hislife. When Lewis was a childhe first experienced "joy'; aa feeling of longing for heknew-not-what:Sehnsucht.Joy was not something hecould summon up; it camerarely and unexpectedly.During his teenage years,when he was an atheist, heassociated joy with a feelingfor Norse mythology andforthe music that Wagner composedfor the "Ring of theNibelungen'; based on thatmythology. Finally, in hisearly thirties, when Lewiswas converted to theism andthen Christianity, he foundjoy lodged in religion. Hecalled his autobiographySurprised by Joy. In his latemiddle age, he married awoman named Joy, whodied shortly thereafter.One often hears fromatheists that Jesus may nothave been the Son of God,but was certainly a wiseman, like Buddha and Mohammed,whose moralteachings the world shouldheed for its own good.Lewis, on the other hand,points out many instances ofJesus's saying things such as:"I am the Anointed,the Sonof the uncreated God, andyou shall see Me appearingatthe endofall history as thejudge of the Universe;' or "Iambegottenofthe OneGod,before Abraham was, I am:'Lewis concludes from this:On the one side, clear, definitemoral teaching. On the other,claims which, if not true, arethose of a megalomaniac, comparedwith whom Hitler was themost sane and humble of men.There is no halfway house andthere is no parallel in other religions.If you had gone to Buddhaandasked him, '~e you theson of Brahma?" he would havesaid,"My son, you are still in thevale ofillusion." Ifyou had goneto Socrates and asked, '~e youZeus?" he would have laughedat you. Ifyou had gone to Mohammedand asked, '~e youAllah?'; he would first have renthis clothes and then cut yourhead off. Ifyou had asked Confucius,''Are you Heaven?" Ithink he would probablyhave replied,"Remarks which are notin accordance with nature are inbad taste:' The idea of a greatmoral teacher sayingwhat Christsaid is out ofthe question. In myopinion, the only person whocan say that sort ofthing is eitherGod or a complete lunatic ...We may note in passing thatHe was never regarded as ameremoral teacher. He did not producethateffectonanyofthepeopIewho actually met Him. Heproduced mainly three effects­Hatred-Terror-Adoration.Therewas no trace ofpeople expressingmild approval.Lewis also gaveshortshriftto Christianswhoprofessthefaith but stick at the VirginBirth. "I can understand theman who denies miracles altogether,but what is one tomake ofpeople who will believein other miracles and'draw the line' at the VirginBirth? . . . In reality theMiracle is no less, and nomore, surprising than anyothers:' He considers thatGod had his hand in everyconception of man and ofanimals, and in this case, Hetookoffhisglove, so tospeak.Lewis has a similarviewofother miracles of fertility,such as the conversion ofwater into wine, and themiracles of the loaves andfishes. God makes all winefrom water, but "Once, andin one year only, God, nowTHE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

incarnate, short-circuits theprocess: makes wine in amoment:'Lewis also infuses secularmatters with a Christianview. In one piece he writes:"The state exists simply topromote and to protect theordinary happiness of humanbeings in this life. Ahusbandand wife chatting overa fire, a couple of friendshaving a game of darts in apub, a manreading a bookinhis own room or digging inhis own garden-that iswhat the State is there for.And unless they are helpingto increase and prolong andprotect such moments, allthe laws, parliaments, armies,courts, police, economics,etc. are simply awaste of time:' On patriotism,he writes:I once ventured to say to an oldclergyman who was voicing thissort of patriotism, [that one'sown nation is superior to allothers] "But sir, aren't we toldthat every people thinks its ownmen the bravest and its ownwomen the fairest in the world?"Herepliedwithtotalgravity-hecould not have been graver if hehad been saying the Creed at thealter-"Yes, but in England it'strue:' To be sure this convictionhad not made my friend (Godrest his soul) avillain; only anextremelylovable old ass. It canhoweverproduce asses thatkickand bite. On the lunatic fringe itmay shade off into that popularRacialism, which Christianityand science equally forbid.Because someofthebooksfrom which these selectionsare taken were collections ofletters or ofradio talks, theytreat many popular topicssuch as sex: "Banish play andlaughter from the bedofloveand you let in a false goddess... The mass of the peopleare perfectly right in theirconviction that Venus is apartly comic spirit. We areunder no obligation at all tosing all our love duets in thethrobbing, world-withoutend,heartbreaking mannerof Tristan and Isolde; let usoften sing like Papageno andPapagena instead:' In writingabout sex in Heaven, hemakes the analogy to a smallC.S. Lewis___- ............ I-/tn __~~-iiaii· ;:;:=::::­boy "who, on being told thatthe sexual actwasthehighestbodily pleasure, should askwhether you ate chocolatesat the same time. On receivingthe answer 'No;he mightregard the absence ofchocolatesas the chief characteristicof sexuality. In vainwould you tell him that thereason why lovers in theircarnal raptures don't botherabout chocolates is that theyhave something better tothink of:' The boy knowschocolates; he doesn'tunderstandsex. We know sex, wedon't understand heaven.Lewis's fields were literature,theology and philosophy.When he venturedintothe social sciences (notoften)he sometimes faltered, suchas in his contention that theeconomics in a fully Christiansociety would be socialistic.In writingaboutmoney,he admits to being out ofhisdepth. He calls for a Christianeconomist to solve theproblem of investmentforbiddenby the Old Testamentand the Fathers of theChurch, butnowthe basis ofourwhole economic system.Lewis was a member ofthe Church of England, ahigh member who confessedweekly andbelievedin purgatory.Libertarians may findthe idea ofan establishedChurchgrotesque, butLewisnever mentioned denominationsin his books-he basedhis faith on the Bible, andwas popular with Catholicsand many Protestants.Have you ever met someonewho seemed so wise andknowledgeable that youwished you could keep himwith you always, like a geniein a bottle, to answer anyquestions as you thought ofthem? Well, genies seem tohave gone out with Aladdin,but this book is a good substitute:traditional Christiananswers in C.S. Lewis's wiseand witty style. DJoAnn Rothbard writes frequentlyfor LR. 49FEBRUARY 1979

TH· EBELT BUCKLES, key rings,necklaces, belts. Over 300 designsavailable. Send $1.00 forLIBERTARIAN ;;;~~;;~:~~~~;~;~~~;f:~:;::::I1LA·SS··I·F·.IEDStJC3PO. Send $5.00 for eachnecklace wanted to LightningBug, Dept. LRS, 5640W. 38th,#11, Indianapolis, IN 46254.CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENTS are accepted at the discretion INGS, stuffing enve1opesofthepublisher ofLibertarian Review. Basic rate: 10 cents per word details-Stamped addressed en- FLATULENT? (Frequently?)(minimum $3); six or more insertions: 10 percent discount; 12 or ve1opes. Fortini's, P.O. Box Fear not! Read Benjamin Frankmoreinsertions: 20 percent discount. Payment must accompany 604, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137. lin's long-suppressed essay oforder. Address: Classified Ad Department, Libertarian Review,1780 on (believe it or not) fart-1620 Montgomery Street, San Francisco CA 94111.GET THE EDUCATION JOB ing. Hilarious! Frameable. $3.you want! Teachers, adminis- "Essay;' Box 69-B, Carrboro,LIBERTARIAN PERIODICALS trators write for school, college NC 27510.ANNOUNCEMENTSopenings USA and abroad. "Iti-PHILOLOGOS-Private news- stant Alert" notifies you of FREE: Wholesalecoinscatalog.MONTREAL WILL HOST letter of libertarian commen- openings in your field. Instant Guaranteed. Lindsey Wholethelargest libertarian conven- tary and satirical speculation. Alert-R, 15 Orchard Street sale, B-13041, Tucson, AZtion ever held in Canadian his- Sample $.50, 12 issues $5.00. Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 85732.tory this February (Washing- OEHILR2, Box 2586, Talla- 02181.ton's birthday weekend). Tour hassee, FL 32304. RUBBER STAMPS. 3-lines,of Montreal included. Inquire TEACHER-ADMINISTRA- $1.50 ($.25 additional line);today. Le Parti Libertaire du LIVE AND LET· LIVE is our TOR: There are good teaching, Signature, $4.50; Bank Depos-Quebec, Box 146, Brossard, religious doctrine and the name administrative jobs available. it, $1.50; c.w.o., FMS, BoxQuebec. of our newsletter. Free sample Current school, college open- 2319-L, Lancaster, CA 93534.issues available. Write Church ings list USA, $5.95; abroadBOOKS of Eternal Life & Liberty, Box $4.95. EISR, Box 662, New- CROSSWORD CHALLENGE!622, Southfield, MI 48037. ton, Massachusetts 02162. Extraordinary set of60 originalSURVIV AL / COMBAT /crossword puzzles featuringSelf-Defense / Wilderness Liv- ROCKY MOUNTAIN EM- EDUCATION music. $3.50. Onesime Piette,ing / Guerrilla Warfare . PLOYMENTNEWSLET-ALTERNATIVE DOCTORAL320GreenwoodPlace, Syracuse,Books / Manuals . . . Catalog TER!! Colorado, Idaho, Mon-PROGRAMwithminimumresi-NY 13210.$1.00 ... Ken Hale (LR-I00), tana, Wyoming! Free details ...McDonald, Ohio 44437. Intermountain-4D, 3506 Birch,dency. Write: Southeastern Uni-UNTIL NOW, NO AUTHORCheyenne, Wyoming 82001.versity, 5163 DeGaulle Drive,HAS DARED TO CHAL-BOOK SERVICES New Orleans, LA 70114.LENGE THIS ASPECT OFLIBERTARIANS, REVISION- ARE YOU FROM DIXIE?HOME STUDY COURSE INYOUR SELF~DESTRUCTIVE1ST, FREETHOUGHT, and Read the Southern LibertarianECONOMICS. A 10-lessonBELIEFS. Dr. Walter BlockRadical books. Over 400 used, Messenger, Box 1245, Florence,demonstrates how you pay astudy that will throw light on to-scarce, and new titles. Send SC 29503. $3/yr.burdensome economic and emoday'sbaffling problems. Tuition$1.00 for catalogue (credited to FOR NEWS AND FEATURES free: small charge for materials.tional price by not defendingfirst purchase). UNPOPULAR such victims as the pimp, prostiaboutLibertarian Activity in: Write to Henry George Institute,BOOKS, P.O. Box 85277, Los tute, drug pusher, slanderer,British Columbia, subscribe to' 55 W. 42nd St., New York, NYAngeles, CA 90072. slumlord, profiteer, loan sharkThe Libertarian, the newsletterI 10036.and scab. Now his book, "DeofTheLibertarian Foundation,There is another LffiERTAR-FREE MARKETfending the. Undefendable;' has909 ThurL .\:.; St., Vancouver,IAN BOOKSTORE with moreitself become a victim. AlthoughB.C. Canada V6E lW3. Onetitles than the one you orderPROTECT YOUR ALBUMS. this intellectual adventure has refromnow. FREE CATALOGyear: $10; sample issue: $1. White cardboard replacement ceived rave reviews from Hayek,from LIBERTY, 184 N. Sunny- BUSINESS jackets 35¢. Grayplasticlined in- Szasz, Hazlitt, Rothbard, HosvaleAvenue, Sunnyvale, CA OPPORTUNITIES ner sleeves 15¢. Postage $1.25. pers, Nozick, and MacBride, it94086.Record boxes and 78 sleeves has'been virtually banned by theUNLIMITED HOME EARN- available. CABCO LM, Box nation's bookstores as too con-LITERARY SERVICES INGS-Addressing envelopes. 8212, Colu~b~s, OH 43201. troversial. So order your hard-Rush 25¢ and stamped, ad-cover copydirectly from thepubdressedenvelope to F.J. Diehl, ELECTRONIC JEWELRY:BOOK SEARCHING. Firstlisher. $9.95. 3 week money-Editions; Scholarly Books; Box 504, Glen Ellyn, IL 60137. Send $1.00 for catalog to Lightbackguarantee. Or send for freeLarge Stock: lists on request. ningBug, Dept. LRE, 5640 W.brochure. Fleet Press, P.O. BoxRegent House, 108 N. Roselake BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. 38th, #11, Indianapolis, IN 21, Brooklyn, NY 11235.50 Avenue,Los Angeles, CA90026. HIGH POTENTIAL EARN- 46254.THE LIBERTARIAN REVIEW

Th Ad Hiddene vantage 0•I verf"If you have been considering the purchase of Silver coins, you're probablyalready aware of their many advantages. For example:• The pre-1965 Silver coin is 90 % fine silver, and thus holds its realvalue, unlike paper currency.• Even in financial chaos, Silver coins are' a familiar medium of exchange,(not always true of Gold,) and therefore may be excellentprotection in times of economic crisis.• Silver is one of the very few commodities in which demand consistentlyexceeds supply.But there is another very important reason to buy Silver coins ...Unlike Gold, Silver coins do not seem as vulnerable to national andinternational monetary manipulations. In the shadow of its more flamboyant counterpart, Gold, themarket value of Silver has steadily risen over recent years ... without the benefit the giant sales, auctions,or similar displays of political juggling.To place your Silver coin order, or for more information, please feel free to call me today."BUD REEDINQUIRE TODAY ABOUT OUR MONTHLY GOLD & SILVER COIN PROGRAMWe are coin brokers and we have the low premium gold coins. The Krugerrands, Austrian andHungarian 100-Coronas, Mexican 50, 20, 10 and 2-Peso gold coins, Austrian 20-Coronas,4-Ducat and 1-Ducat coins, and British Sovereigns. We guarantee quoted prices, safe deliveryand authenticity of every coin we sell.BUD REED1604 MICHIGAN NATIONAL TOWERLANSING, MICHIGAN 489331-800-248-5952 New 24-Hr. Toll Free NumberMichigan residents please call 1-517-484-3198To learn more about purchasing gold and silver, write today for our free brochure.

THE 1979 LIBERTARIANPRESIDENTIAL NOMINATINGMake plans now to attend thelargest Libertarian gatheringin history! You don't have to bea delegate.to enjoy over 20featured speakers, LibertyNight at Disneyland, a galabanquet and much, much more!1Thousands of libertarians willbe meeting at the magnificentLos Angeles Bonaventure HotelSeptember 6-9, 1979, to layCONVENTION. i " ',;tlt~groundwork for the 1980campaign year-a year thatpromises to go down in history asthe one in which the Libertarianideals of peace, tolerance andliberty once again become thefocus for political debatein America.IITOWARD ATHREEPAR7YSYSTEMIISEPTEMBER 6-9, 1979Registration information andcomplete details onthe conventionwill be available in May. Forinformation about state LPconventions or group travelarrangements to the nationalconvention,write to:Libertarian Party1516 P Street NWWa~hington, D. C.20005Los AngelesBonaventureHotel