Book Reviews

BOOKS Libertarians and Liberalism-Essays in Honour of Gerard Radnitzky edited by Hardy Bouillon Avebury; Aldershot, England. 1996 • 359 pages • $76.50 Reviewed by George C. Leef G erard Radnitzky is a name little known in America, but he is a prominent figure in European liberal (using the word, of course, in its original meaning) circles. A native of Germany, he defected from the German military in April 1945, flying his airplane to Sweden. After acquiring Swedish citizenship, he became interested in politics and philos ophy, thanks largely to socialists like Gunnar Myrdal, whose views Radnitzky found abhor rent. He met and befriended F. A. Hayek, absorbing much from him. As the editor writes of him, "[T]here is a leitmotif that runs through the history of his intellectual life, namely, the love of freedom and the quest for a state-if we must have one-that leaves it to individuals to shape their own lives and lets them take the responsibilityfor it." This collec tion of essays has been compiled in honor of Radnitzky, a redoubtable advocate of liberty.

The writers include many of the sharpest critics of statism today: Walter Block, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Arthur Seldon, Hans Senn holz, Anthony de Jasay, Gordon Tullock, and Antony Flew. The editor has grouped the essaysinto three sections. First, "Libertarian ism and Liberalism: of Laps, Links and Lapses"; second, "The Fatal Franchise of Freedom: of Social Choice Democracy"; and third, "The Future of Freedom: of Facts and Fiction." Most of the work is excellent and I will briefly mention several pieces that stand out in my mind. In "Libertarians and the Rule of Law," Arthur Seldon explores the reasons for and implications of the decline of the rule of law. He writes, "'Democracy' is propounded as an 449 unquestioned political ideal-by politicians. The good word 'public' has been debased into a cynical question-begging misdescription for the power-seeking by individuals who would fail in the competitive test of the market place." Too much law, he argues, undermines respect for and the enforceability of true law that protects human society.

In "The Bitter Medicine of Freedom," Anthony de Jasay argues that freedom is menaced in our time not so much by "despots, dictators or totalitarian creeds," as by the all-too-human tendency to want to abdicate our responsibility for our mistakes and fail ings. People want freedom to do the things they like, but want the state to succor them when things go awry. As he says, "The rough underside of freedom is responsibility for oneself. The fewer the institutional obstacles an individual faces in choosing acts to fit his preferences, the more his life iswhat he makes of it, and the less excusehe has for what he has made of it. ... The corollary of an individual's discretion to contribute to or coldly ignore the purposes of the community is that he has no good claims upon it to advance his pur poses." The statists succeed mainly by prom ising people relief from that bitter medicine. If we are to preserve freedom, however, we have to convince people that some doses of that bitter medicine are inevitable.

Antony Flew's "Social Democracy and the Myth of Social Justice" needs to be in the arsenal of anyone who wants to combat the constant cry of the statists that various coer cive measures must be implemented in order to advance "social justice." Hayek attacked the notion of "social justice" in the second volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty, but Flew improves upon Hayek's criticism, taking pains to argue that "social justice as custom arily conceived is precisely not a kind of justice." He leaves in tatters the theories of Rawls and other contemporary advocates of the idea that state-sanctioned coercion can make for a more just world. Vaclav Klaus, finance minister of the Czech Republic, offers up a great tribute to the Austrian School in "The Austrian School-Its Significancefor the Transformation Process." How wonderful to read that Austrian ideas 450 THE FREEMAN • JULY 1997 have played a major role in the Czech Re public's journey from tyranny to freedom.

Other notable contributions to this volume include Angelo Petroni's "Is There a Morality in Redistribution?," Manfred Streit's "Com petition Among Systems as a Defence of Liberty," Antonio Martino's "Ideas and the Future of Liberty," and Hans Sennholz's solid "The Bohm-Bawerkian Foundation of the Interest Theory." The one essay that is rather weak is "Lib eralism and Libertarians" by Gerd Haber man, a critique of libertarian thinking that rehashes a lot of arguments that have been refuted often-for example, the canard that libertarians regard people as "isolated at oms," ignorant of "their most basic social bonds." To consistently reject the use of coercion in human relationships is not at all the same as denying or ignoring the fact that human beings need to have social bonds. This book needed a more careful proof reading and the typeface is not the easiest to read. Nevertheless, this collection is chock full of brilliant insights and devastating arguments. D Mr. Leef is president of Patrick Henry Associates: Liberty Consultants in East Lansing, Michigan, and also book review editor of The Freeman The Long AJfair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800 by Conor Cruise O'Brien University of Chicago Press. 1996 • 385 pages.

$29.95 Reviewed by Aeon James Skoble A lthough Thomas Jefferson is popularly known as a great statesman, historians have long been aware that he, like everyone else, was not as purely good as his popular image would suggest. Political thinkers of some stripes even find his theories of govern ment objectionable. There have been many treatments of Jefferson's thought and legacy, both sympathetic and critical, yet there is something distinctive about Conor Cruise O'Brien's new book, The Long Affair: its extreme polemical character. There have also been many polemics about Jefferson, but here, unfortunately, is a polemic masquerad ing as a serious work of history. O'Brien's main goal is to show that Jefferson deserves none of the reverence he has enjoyed since his death. Specifically, O'Brien wants to show that Jefferson is the direct ideological ances tor of racist skinheads, apartheid South Af rica, and Timothy McVeigh.

O'Brien is off the mark in several respects. Chief among them is the lack of theoretical sophistication and historical context in his analysis. That's a weighty charge to level against a respected writer like O'Brien, but the fact is that he betrays his lack of theoret ical perspective by not so much as mentioning the English philosopher John Locke. Locke is an essential antecedent to everything in the Declaration of Independence, a fact which O'Brien surely knows. Locke had, in the previous century, carefully laid out a theory of natural rights of self-ownership and the en suing importance of consent. Locke also sets out a right to rebel against an unjust authority, which Jefferson's generation understood. O'Brien takes Jefferson to task for being an "ideologue," i.e., for thinking that he was the definitive interpreter of timeless truths. But the rhetorical significance of the phrase "self evident truths" was to highlight to the target audience, the British, that the colonists' com plaint was not radical at all. The political theory expressed in the Declaration was at least 90 years old by the time of the Second Continental Congress. Locke had already established the legitimacy of the notion of government by consent and natural, inalien able rights, and these theories were common currency in England. The English themselves were supposed to be proponents of the Lock ean theory-that's the point of calling it a "self-evident truth." The idea that govern ment derives its just power from the consent of the governed was certainly not something Jefferson would have claimed sole proprietor-.

ship over. O'Brien makes much of the fact that John Adams and Benjamin Franklin made small revisions to the draft of the Declaration in an unconvincing attempt to show that Jefferson doesn't deserve the credit for writing it. But now the polemicism is made transparent: according to O'Brien, Jefferson deserves de nunciation for originating a theory of revolu tion, but doesn't deserve to be revered as the author of the theory. The reality is that Jefferson wasn't, and wouldn't have claimed to be, the originator of the political theory underlying the Declaration, but was an elo quent articulator of that theory. In any case, O'Brien is guilty of several ad hominem attacks of the weakest sort. To suggest that there is something suspect about Jefferson because Mr. McVeigh (or whoever) likes to quote him is fallacious reasoning. It's like sayingthat since Charles Manson quoted John Lennon, Lennon must have been evil.

O'Brien makes several such charges, includ ing his thoroughly unpersuasive attempt to show that the Ku Klux Klan is "descended from" Jefferson, whatever that means. As we are. all now aware, Jefferson owned slaves, in spite of his often-stated view that slaverywas an offense against natural law. For O'Brien, this is evidence of pathological, virulent racism. Any number of more sensible considerations of this paradox (most recently Sean Wilentz's excellent critique of O'Brien in The New Republic or historian Joseph Ellis's American Sphinx) have demonstrated that things are not that simple. Could Jeffer son have shown greater moral courage than he did? Perhaps, but remember that slavery was the norm for that time and place, so there were more complex legal and financial factors involved, which, while not exculpatory, also suggest less harsh condemnation. During the Second Continental Congress, Jefferson tried to include an antislavery clause in the Dec laration, but it was vetoed by the Southern delegation. Later he arranged for the release of some, but not all, of his slaves. Is it strange that someone who thinks that slavery is a moral wrong should not have done a better job ending the institution of slavery?How can we answer that question satisfactorily? De ciding that Jefferson could have done more is a far cry from branding him a vicious racist.

No personal attack on Jefferson's character would be complete without revisiting the allegation that he had a long affair with his BOOKS 451 slave Sally Hemings. The "long affair" of the book's title is meant to refer most obviouslyto Jefferson's enchantment with the French Rev olution, and his seeming endorsement of its worst excesses, which is part of the link between Jefferson and McVeigh, according to O'Brien, who documents this with selected writings (whileignoring other more moderate writings). But the "long affair" also evokes the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Was there such an affair? The only honest answer is: we can't be sure. There is some evidence to support the story, but not very much, and the story originated in the mouths of political enemies of Jefferson. To accept uncritically the allegations as further ammunition for a personal attack is not the mark of reasoned discourse, yet O'Brien is far too quick to endorse the story in its entirety.

O'Brien's book is so clouded by animus that it fails to be either reasonable or persuasive. Whatever his faults, Jefferson doesn't deserve this, and more to the point, modern readers interested in exploring the perplexing legacy of Jefferson do not deserve it either. D Dr. Skoble is Visiting Assistant Professor of Philos ophy at Southeast Missouri State University. The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings From Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman edited by David Boaz Free Press. 1997 • 476 pages. $27.50 Reviewed by William H. Peterson A sked Shakespeare's Juliet: What's in a name? Yesterday conservatism was "in" as the name of what could be called the freesociety movement. Today, increasingly, libertarianism as the catch-name is in. Recent books by Charles Murray (What It Means to Be a Libertarian) and David Boaz (the title reviewed here and his Libertarianism: A Primer) have put the word "libertarian" in front of many who were not previously famil iar with it.

As editor David Boaz says in his introduc452 THE FREEMAN • JULY 1997 tion to this fine collection, it is easier to define libertarian ideas than to agree on a proper name for those ideas. The essays he has chosen succeed in explaining the essence of libertarian thinking. Believers in statism may not be won over (although they should be!) but after The Libertarian Reader, they won't have any excuse for misrepresenting what libertarians stand for. Mr. Boaz sets forth seven sections of se lected readings, sixof them on central ideas in libertarianism: skepticism about power, indi vidualism, individual rights, spontaneous or der, free markets and voluntary order, and peace and international harmony. The sev enth section relates to the future of libertar ianism and features a gem, "Paternalist Gov ernment Is Out of Date" by Michael Prowse of The Financial Times. Selections and ideas match well, and make this a most handy reference work, even though many of the selections (such as James Madison's Federalist No. 10 and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence) can be found in conservative and other readers.

Where Mr. Boaz especially shines is in his annotated comments and libertarian asides. He notes, for example, that Jefferson in his draft of the Declaration of Independence insisted on the phrase inalienable rights, that these rights are "natural," that government can't transfer or abolish them, that if it does, the people have "the right to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government." Among these many selections are such other sharp questioners of state authoritari anism as John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, Frederic Bastiat, and, from the twentieth century, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, H. L. Mencken, and Charles Murray. (Of interest to Freeman readers is Doug Bandow's "Private Prejudice, Private Remedy," which originally appeared in the July 1996issueof thisjournal.) David Boaz knows the literature well and has wisely drawn from it. Particularly noteworthy, I believe, is the essay "The Right to Do Wrong" by Roger Pilon, director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute (where Mr. Boaz serves as executive vice president). Mr. Pilon endorses the Supreme Court's 1990 defense of flag burning as a First Amendment rightnot onlyof speechbut of content. Pilon'spoint is allspeech is a form of action and, arguably,all action is, if not speech, at least a form of expressionwith which the government has no right to inter fere-as long as .the action is peaceful-no matter how much it annoys others.

Such jewels abound in this mustering of sharp minds. D Dr. Peterson, an adjunct scholar at the Heritage Foundation, is Distinguished Lundy ProfessorEmer itus of Business Philosophy at Campbell University in North Carolina. The UnknownLenin, From the SecretArchive edited by Richard Pipes with the assistance of David Brandenberger; basic translation of Russian documents by Catherine A. Fitzpatrick Yale University Press • 1996 • xi-xx + 204 pages. $27.50 Reviewed by Joseph T. Fuhrmann I t has been inspiring to watch the "opening up" of Russian archives since the collapse of the USSR. Foreigners now have access to documents once denied even to communist historians. The "Presidential Archives" in Moscow hold papers still classified "top se cret," but a few people are permitted to work there. Bureaucratic attitudes in the open archives can still be confining and frustrating, but despite that complication, amazing ma terials are now available.

This volume contains a selection of 122 documents housed at the Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Recent History (RtsKhIDNI) in Moscow. They have been translated into English and are published here under a joint venture between Yale University Press and the RtsKhIDNI. Yale has worked with Russian archives to issue three other titles in this "Annals of Communism Series": The Secret World ofAmerican Communism, Stalin's Letters to Molotov, 1925-1936,and The Fall ofthe Romanovs. The Unknown Lenin is a worthy addition to an important series. Richard Pipes, emeritus professor of Rus sian history at Harvard, is the principal editor of The Unknown Lenin. Pipes has long striven to refute the notion that Lenin was an admirable fellow who made a noble revolution which was betrayed by Joseph Stalin. It is not that Pipes is favorable to Stalin; his concern, rather, is to show that Lenin was equally ruthless and un principled. Or more so. Pipes relishes the story that when Molotov, the "only Communist offi cial to serve both Lenin and Stalin throughout their political careers, was asked to compare the two, he declared without hesitation that Lenin had been the 'more severe' or 'harsher' (bolee surovyi)."Who could have been better qualified than Molotov to make such a judgment! As Pipes remarks, "Those who still idealize Lenin and contrast him favorably with Stalin will find little comfort in the Lenin documents which are now coming to light."

One of the purposes of this volume, then, is to demolish favorable sentiment for Lenin. Some of the documents do this. On August 11, 1918, for example, we find Lenin demanding that a kulak uprising in Penza be suppressed by hanging "no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers .... Find some truly hard people." On March 19, 1922, Lenin issued an order concerning con fiscation of church property and the execution of priests and others who sought to block such seizures. "[I]f it is necessary to resort to certain brutalities for the sake of realizing a certain political goal, they must be carried out in the most energetic fashion and in the briefest possible time because the masses will not tol erate prolonged application of brutality .... Therefore, ... we must give battle to the Black Hundreds [a pre-revolutionary, proto-fascist or ganization] clergy in the most decisive and merciless manner and crush its resistance with such brutality that it willnot forget it for decades to come." The trial of these people should "be conducted with the maximum of speed and ...

end in no other way than execution by firing squad of a very large number of the most influential and dangerous" rebels. Pipes incontrovertibly proves that Lenin BOOKS 453 was ruthless and tyrannical. To his credit, however, he also offers many documents which show more admirable sides of the man. A major theme in Lenin's correspondence, for example, is concern for the health and wellbeing of his correspondents. Lenin also seems to have had a limited appetite for personal aggrandizement. On January 29, 1919, we find Lenin rejecting a suggestion from the historian N. A. Rozhkov that he (Lenin) implement a "personal dictator ship" -though one wonders how such a re gime would have differed from what the Bolsheviks had established! This same letter gives a hint, incidentally, of why Lenin so disliked capitalism. Rozhkov had suggested that the solution to the food shortage might be free trade. "You should not be thinking of free trade," Lenin replied: "free trade, given the absolute shortage of essential produce, is equivalent to frenzied, brutal speculation and the triumph of the haves over the have-nots."

Lenin preferred to allow large numbers of people to starve rather than abandon his Marxist economic doctrines. Admirable as this volume is, one questions the importance of some of the documents it offers. The translations seem excellent, as are the "Introduction," the editors' comments on individual documents, the index, and the archival listing and data for each document. All concerned deserve praise for their efforts, which throw a lot of new light on the man chiefly responsible for bringing the world's first communist state into existence. D Dr. Fuhrmann, who teaches Russian history at Murray State University,is the author of Rasputin: A Life (Praeger, 1990). The Disadvantages of Being Educated edited by Robert M. Thornton Hallberg Publishing Corp., Tampa, Florida 33623 • 1996 • 221 pages. $14.95 paperback Reviewed by Edmund A. Opitz T he Disadvantages ofBeing Educated is an event, of sorts; it gathers together essays little noticed, perhaps, nor long remembered 454 THE FREEMAN • JULY 1997 ... except by those who have come to appre ciate Albert Jay Nock's vast learning, his wit, and his unembroidered literary style.This book is good news; the editor is thoroughly familiar with the eiltire range of Nock's writ ing, and it may be assumed that these essays are his favorites.

Robert Thornton, the editor of this admi rable collection, was the prime mover behind the scenes of the Nock renewal that began to surface during the late fifties. In 1963 he, a businessman, assembled two kindred spir its-a neurosurgeon and a minister-and over a convivialluncheon the Nockian Society began to emerge. It was not to be just another organization: God forbid! The three of us contemplated a kind of clearinghouse oper ation with an occasional newsletter carrying items of interest to men and women who had been touched by Nock's writing. On our masthead were the words: No Meetings; No Officers; No Dues. This was to be a society that kept out of members' way; the next best thing, observed someone, to no society at all! It was basicallya mailing list plus a real person to answer the phone. Over the years the Society's mailing list grew to nearly 700 names. The Society had no expenses except post age. Members, from time to time, would send a gift to cover that. Occasionally we would turn up a rare, out-of-print Nock title and auction it off through the newsletter. Our first Society publication was a wonderful collec tion of Nock's thoughts on a variety of topics, assembled by Robert Thornton and entitled Cogitations from Albert Jay Nock, 120 pages.

This appeared in 1970 to mark the centenary of Nock's birth. It has gone through three printings: our bestseller. Most readers of this review know Nock, at least by name. One hopes that they gained some acquaintance with the man himself, and his career, in Jim Powell's splendid essay on Nock in the March 1997Freeman. In the same issue is a reprint of Nock's most popular essay, "Isaiah's Job," which first appeared in print in Harper's in 1936. The Foundation for Eco nomic Education issued it in pamphlet form in the early fifties and has put nearly a million copies into print during the past 45 years. There was an early Freeman launched in 1920with Nock as editor. He authored many articles in addition to his editorials. Funds ran out in 1924 and Nock sailed off for the Continent, where he lived during most of the next 16 years. It was a period of intense literary activity. In 1926, his classic Jefferson appeared, to mark the centenary of our third president's death. Half a dozen years later he gave a course of lectures at the University of Virginia, which became the book The Theory ofEducation in the United States. A steady flow of essays from Nock's pen during the 1930s appeared in quality magazines and then in book form. He wrote a learned book on Rabelais and in 1931 published a definitive annotated edition of The Works of Francis Rabelais in two huge volumes. Our Enemy, the State appeared in 1935 and has been the subject of some controversy ever since con cerning the distinction Nock makes between Government and The State; essentially it is the same distinction made by Bastiat between The Law, whose purpose is justice between persons, and The Law perverted to advantage some at the expense of others. This arrange ment is clear in the case of the Norman Conquest of England. The Normans parceled out the land-20 percent to the king, 25 percent to The Church, and the rest to 170 Norman noblemen. Such a regime is The State, and may have been the kind of thing that Ludwig von Mises had in mind when he pointed out that "All ownership derives from occupation and violence." (Socialism, p. 32 and Human Action, p. 679) Nock's words clarify the issue: "... when society deprives The State of the power to make positive interventions on the individual-power to exercise positive coercion on him in his eco nomic and social life-then at once the State goes out of existence, and what remains is government ... government as contemplated by Mr. JefIerson in the Declaration, by Paine, by Franklin, and the 18th century British Whigs and Liberals. That's all." But, as Nock pointed out in another context, most people do not want a government that will let them alone; they want a government they can use to their own advantage, and at the expense of everyone else, Le., they want The State.

After Nock returned to the United States in 1940, an old publisher friend began badgering him to write his autobiography. Nock had always felt that his private life was nobody's business but his own. So the publisher tried a different tack: Why not make this the auto biography of a mind; how you arrived at the philosophy you liveby, how you would explain and defend the ideas you've made your own, what first attracted you to them, and how they have served you? Nock was intrigued and set to work on what became Memoirs of a Super fluous Man. It's a dull fellow indeed who can read this book and not be deeply moved by it. Ideas begin to bulge and fever in the brain; there are birth pangs, growth hurts! Your reading program changes as you chase down some of the titles Nock discusses; you are going through what might be termed a semi religious experience. Nock never did seek a "following" in the customary understanding of that term. What he did was generate new Answersto LibertyQuiz (p. 424) 1. (H.) English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) in Second Treatise on Civil Gov ernment (1689).

2. (D.) The phrase laissez-faire has been attributed to the seventeenth-century French businessman Legendre and popularized by Jacques C.M. Vincent de Gournay (1712 1759). 3. (L.) Attributed to Boston attorney James Otis (1725-1783) in 1763. 4. (M.) Thomas Paine (1737-1809) in Com mon Sense (1776). 5. (G.) Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in a letter to William Stevens Smith, November 13, 1787. 6. (T.) Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). 7. (J.) Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), in Our Enemy, the State (1935). 8. (B.) Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), in his 1736 Poor Richard's Almanac. 9. (0.) Adam Smith (1723-1790), in The Wealth of Nations (1776). BOOKS 455 perspectives in a reader, and a new mood; operate on your own steam and you begin to develop strength from within, also from around and above. There are Nockians and incipient Nockians in unexpected places; a zestful crew if ever there was one!

So, how does one get started? Well, you start by reading the essays, seventeen of them, in The Disadvantages of Being Educated, 221 pages of superb writing. The friendly pub lisher has designed a very attractive high quality paperback, and Mr. Thornton the secretary of The Nockian Society, contributes a fine introduction. You may contact The Nockian Society at 42 Leathers Road, Fort Mitchell, Kentucky 41017. Intellectual adven ture lies ahead. 0 The Reverend Mr. Opitz served on the senior staff of The Foundation for Economic Education for 37 years. Now retired, he continues to serve FEE as a Trustee, and as a contributing editor of The Freeman. 10. (A.) Lord Acton (1834-1902), in his letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887. 11. (S.) Mark Twain (1835-1910), in Pudd'nhead Wilson (1894). 12. (C.) Milton Friedman (1912- ), in many talks since the 1960s. 13. (E.) F.A. Hayek (1899-1992), in The Road to Serfdom (1944).

14. (N.) Ayn Rand (1905-1982), in her March 1964 Playboy interview. 15. (I.) Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), in Human Action (1949). 16. (F.) Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993), in Economics in One Lesson (1946). 17. (R.) Thomas Sowell (1930- ), in Is Reality Optional? and Other Essays (1993). 18. (0.) Leonard E. Read (1898-1983), Anything That's Peaceful (1964). 19. (K.) P.J. O'Rourke (1947- ), inAge and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Hair cut (1995). 20. (P.) Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," in Left and Right (1965). This brief quiz underscores the exhilarating sophistication and spirit of liberty.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS the journal of the lEA edited by Colin Robinson In recentissues: Labour Markets, edited by J.R. Shackleton, with contributions from John Philpott, Patrick Minford, Frank Field, Paul Ormerod, Peter Robinson, and Shirley Dex. (Spring 1996) European Monetary Union, edited by Colin Robinson, with contri butions from David Currie, Patrick Minford, Roland Vaubel, Pascal Salin, Anna J. Schwartz, and Bernard Connolly. (Summer 1996) Foreign Aid: Who Needs It?, edited by Robert Whelan, with contributions from Deepak La!, Sir Alan Walters, Karl A. Ziegler, Peter Boone, and Evan Davis. (Autumn 1996) International Trade and the Environment, edited by Julian Morris, with contributions from Timothy M. Swanson, N.R. Evans, James M. Sheehan, Colin Hines, and Fred L. Smith, Jr. (Winter 1996) Forthcoming: The Minimum Wage Debate Economics of Sport Defence Economics June 1997 September 1997 December 1997 Published four times a year by Blackwell Publishers Limited 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 1997Subscriptionpricesare asfollows: (Canadian customers/residents please add 7% for GST) Europe N.America Rest of World Institutions £50.00 US$87.oo £55.00 Individuals £15.00 US$35.OO £20.00 THEFREEMAN IDEASON LIBERTY FEATURES 460 The Pine Barrens Parousia:A Reporter's Notebook by Matthew Carolan Feisty landowners fight land-use regulation on Long Island.