Justice and Cultural Diversity; P. Perlmutter

How government relates to individuals and groups-and vice versa-are not new problems. The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights grappled with them. And while none of the Founding Fathers foresaw the evolution of today's enormous and tpul tivaried population, they knew of the dan gers of a divided people, and of a govern ment that gives special privileges to some groups, whether royal, religious, or political. George Washington visualized an Amer ica that "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," and that "re quires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. " With equal simplicity, John Quincy Adams wrote that America "is a land, not of privileges, but of equal rights" and that "privileges granted to one denom ination of people, can very seldom be dis criminated from erosions of the rights of others." Professor Perlmutter is author of Divided We Fall: A History of Ethnic, Religious, and Racial Prejudice in America (Iowa State University Press).

Such views, plus the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, formed the basis of the American ideal, though all too often not of its reality. It is the contrast between the ideal and the reality that leads to the question: what kind of governmental system best insures the greatest freedoms for individualsand groups, as well as the greatest possibilities of un doing wrongs among and between them, and with the least injury to any, and to the nation's unity? There is ample evidence that insuring individual equal rights, with unrestricted opportunities for redressing individual and group wrongs, is more desirable than insur ing group preferential rights, where redress is limited or prioritized by the victim's group affiliationand percentage of the population. Governments and elections by majorities, pluralities, or coalitions, whatever their shortcomings, are still more salutary for most people and less injurious to some than governments of proportionalized minorities.

The latter model seems theoretically fairer and more attractive because it seems to offer immediate representation and re dress to some minorities. But in reality it also generates, multiplies, and perpetuates tensions and conflicts among many minori ties, eventually overshadowing whatever initial progress was made, delaying solu tions to existing problems, and endangering the wellbeing of society itself. Also, by providing benefits to some groups on a preferential basis, a disrespect, if not contempt, for the recipients, the providers, and the law is created or re510 inforced. And why not? Why should all members of a group be eligible for benefits that no members of other groups are? Why must there be lower standards for some groups and higher ones for others-for the same job, promotion, or entrance to col lege? Is there, as various racists and sexists have long claimed, something biologically, intellectually, and/or socially amiss with some groups? Or is there, as a few contem porary minority extremists claim, some thing biologically, intellectually, and/or so cially superior in their group?

If all people are equally entitled to certain inalienable rights and opportunities, why do some insist on differential treatment in obtaining them-whether it be via quotas, goals and timetables, and set-asides, or exemptions from standard procedures? Is it not hypocritical to deplore being denied 511 equal opportunities and treatment, and then to defend the denial of the same to other individuals or groups? Is it no less hypocrit ical to denounce the misbehavior of others and defend the very same behavior by members of one's own group? Who can respect the beneficiaries of fa voritism? Who can respect those who gain something denied others? And how can the recipients respect themselves? And what is one to say about legislators who validate such behavior? There is no evidence that governmental policies based on racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual preferences or proportional repre sentation can assure or generate more free dom, self-respect, cooperation, wellbeing,.

or security, than can governmental policies based on individual rights, liberties, and blindfolded justice. D FREE TO TRY A Freeman Classic Book T his concise, thought-provoking collection of two dozen classic essays from The Freeman magazine demonstrates that the risk-taking entre preneur is actually a creative visionary - indeed, the mainspring of human progress. Filled with entertaining stories of successful capitalists, Free to Try reveals the strength of character required to rise /I from rags to riches" - how the profit-seeking of individuals also benefits society at large - why /I specula tors" should be praised, not despised - and why capitalism is the only social system compatible with the productive needs of the entrepreneur, and the many benefits he provides to us all. For students, teachers, public officials, and ordinary citizens alike, Free to Try provides a potent antidote to centuries of poisonous myths about business men and what they do. It offers a ringing and inspiring defense of creative market activit~ and of those who labor heroically to provide us with goods and services that make our economy the envy of the world.

FREE TO TRY 144 pages + index, paperback, $14.95. Order from: The Foundation for Economic Education Visa or MasterCard orders: (800) 452-3518 THEFREEMAN IDEASON LIBERTY IndividualResponsibility and Economic WellBeing by Paul A. Cleveland and Brian H. Stephenson D espite being .motivated by apparent concern for the poor, government ef forts to redistribute income have failed. Decades of U.S. welfare programs have failed to rescue both the urban and the rural poor. The only way to maximize economic wellbeing for all is to rely upon individual choice and responsibility, not income redis tribution. In order to transfer income to some citi zens, government must first take income from others. The more government attempts to redistribute wealth, the less wealth it finds to redistribute. Ultimately, such action consumes capital, depletes wealth, and ends in widespread hardship and increasing de spair.