lation in these countries? Would henbrusquely dismiss any Latvian attemptsnto preserve their identity and culturenby, say, restricting the voting power ofnimmigrant Russians? And if not, whynwould he accord Latvians or Moldaviansnany more privileged a status thannthe Assamese?nThis is not to deny that Sowell theneconomist brings strengths to his analysis.nHis insistence that ethnic discriminationntakes place far,more easily inngovernment than in the free marketnbecause the employer: or the landlordnmust, on the market, pay the costs ofnhis own discrimination is well-taken. Inngovernment, on the other hand, thencosts can be loaded onto the taxpayers.nSowell also shows that the beneficiariesnof affirmative action in the UnitednStates are not the majority of blacks butnthe noisy and relatively well-off blacknelites. But these arguments are by nownold hat, and they don’t begin to makenup for the arrogant exclusion of moralnand cultural factors from the discussion.nIt is a besetting sin of rriodern economistsn(whatever their ideology) thatnthey understandably burn to delivernpronouncements on political questionsnbut hold it necessary to cleave to thenpose of “value-free scientists,” sternlyndismissing all noneconomic positionsnas absurd, whimsical, and lacking thencommanding weight of Science. EvennSowell’s tone follows suit: his writing isnclear enough, but delivered in a ploddingnand monotonous style, unrelievednby any flashes of wit or insight — a stylenthe late British humorist Stephen Potternmarvelously described as “plonking.”nAnd yet, at crucial moments, Sowell’snwork is “political” in the worstnsense. Central to the entire question ofnpreferential politics and affirmative action,nat least in the United States, is thenfatal initial step of compulsory integration.nFor before the mandating of coercednprivileges to blacks occurred thenfirst critical intervention: the federalngovernment trampled on the rights ofnprivate property by making “discrimination”n(first against blacks and nownagainst a never-ending parade ofngroups) illegal. The right to employ ornto rent or to sell must imply the right tonexclude from employment or rent ornsale; destruction of that right by outlawingndiscrimination leads to the currentnflood of horrors as the nightnfollows the day. Free-market economics,nif it means anything at all, meansnTHE WISDOM OF THE PLANNED GIFTnthe freedom to own property and toncontract for that property as one seesnfit. Neoconservatism, on the othernhand, supports the initial compulsorynintegration or anti-discrimination stagenof civil rights but balks at affirmativenaction. Thomas Sowell, however, isnboth a free-market economist and anpolitical neoconservative. Where doesnhe stand on this crucial conflict? Whonknows? For once again, he deals withnthis important question by simply notnbringing it up.nWhat accounts for the continuingnovervaluation of Thomas Sowellnamong the reading public in generalnand in the conservative movement innparticular? Could it have anything tondo with the fact that Sowell is one ofnthe very few black free-market economists?nEconomists are very familiarnwith the fact that one’s market value isnin direct proportion to one’s scarcity,nand Sowell is all too scarce a phenomenon.nBut surely the familiar argumentsnagainst affirmative action should applyneven here: it is kinder, both to Sowellnhimself and to the cause of truth andnscholarship, to treat him as everyonenshould be treated — according to individualnmerit, and in a color-blind man-nnnernThere are a variety of ways to give to educational and charitable organizations, likenThe Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.nMost people make outright gifts wfiich result in a “charitable deduction” from theirntaxable income in a given year. But there are other ways to give that can preservenincome or assets for a donor and his beneficiaries, avoid capital gains and estatentaxes, and benefit the Institute or other charities of your choice. These are oftennreferred to as “planned gifts.”nPooled Income Funds provide income to a donor or his beneficiary and can benestabhshed at the $5,000 level. The amount in the fund can be added to each year,nand the amount of income depends on the performance of the pooled fund. This fundnhas both high inconie and growth-oriented investments, and the return is generallynmuch higher than stock dividends. The amount of charitable tax deduction for the giftndepends on the fair niarket value of the assets contributed (there is no capital gains taxnon stock contributions) and is related to the age of the donor or beneficiaries. There is no capital gains tax to thendonor on the increased value of the fund over time. Upon the death of the donor or beneficiary, the assets go to thenInstitute and bypass estate taxes.nLegacy Program, The Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street, Rocldord, IL 61103nn Please send me general information on the various “Planned Giving” options.nD Please send me information on the Institute’s Pooled Income Fund.nNAME ^ , ADDRESSnCITY : STATE ZIP PHONEnIf you have a specific asset, such as stocks, that you are considering for a contribution, and if you would like the Institute to evaluate the financialntax implications for your gift, please include the following information:nSS # SS # (SPOUSE)nCOST OF ASSET ESTIMATED MARKET VALUEn34/CHRONICLESnnn