working of society against movements fornartificial equality. Right-libertarians defendnthe freedom to be unequal (meaningnbetter) against state power thatncurbs achievement, while left-libertariansncall for equality of status for those whonbehave in unequal (meaning morally inferior)nways. Though both groups ofnlibertarians claim to be individualists,nthey attempt to aflfect the status of thosenthey champion in different ways. Thusnconservatives and right-libertarians findnthat they have a stake in the traditionalnsociety which socialists and left-libertariansnconsider oppressive.n”age, despite his fondness for socialism,ndoes not base his argument on Marx.nHe goes back further to a pure form ofnutilitarianism, thus forging a link betweenn19th- and 20th-century liberalism beforenmoving rapidly fiirther left. To Page it isnself-evident that the marginal utility of andollar gained by the poor is greater thannthe marginal utility lost to the rich fornhaving a dollar taken away. Thus totalnutility (happiness) for society can be increasednby redistribution until full equalitynis reached. This goes rather farthernthan Bentham, Mill, or Pigou were willingnto go. It also violates the principlenthat interpersonal utility comparisonsnare invalid because they are purely subjectivenand abstract. Page gets aroundnthis by arguing that if such comparisonsnare not going to be made, then it is pointlessnto talk about social justice. Quite so.nThe only barrier Page can see to redistributionnis that under a capitalist systemnincentives need to be maintained so thatnpeople will work hard, save, and invest.nHe concedes that if future increases innincome for the poor can only be achievednby letting some others have more incomennow to support growth, then inequalitynis rational (though still not just).nHowever, he does not believe private investmentnis the only way to grow. Statencontrol of investment and the means ofnproduction can serve the same ends.nSubstitution of peer-group pressure andnpatriotism can replace material incentivesnin the work place.n18inChronicles of CttlturenMore basic sources of inequality arenalso to be attacked. Page is femiliar withnChristopher Jencks’s research showingnthat family life is the principle explanationnfor unequal levels of achievement.nTherefore, the family must be eliminatednin favor of communal child-rearing. Wenshould look to communist China or Cubanfor lessons in creating the new socialistnman (though he is distressed by what hensees as backsliding toward material incentivesnin both socialist states).nIt is enthralling to watch Page’s rapidnmovements in the confines of a singlenbook. Taking the path from classical liberalnto self-aflHrmed democratic socialistnis not unusual these days, but his constantnreferences to the Soviets, Cuba,nand communist China clearly show hownsetting even one foot on the slipperynslope of socialism can whisk a personnstraight into the abyss.nPage’s quest for equality is all-inclusive;nthus, foreign policy is also an issue.nAmerican policy, he contends, is to “keepnthe poor from taking any of its wealthnand thereby preserve international inequality.”nHe is disturbed because justn10 percent of the world’s population, thenU.S., receives 30 percent of the global in­ncome. He feils to consider that this is becausenthe U.S. produces 30 percent ofnglobal output. A preference for socialismnat home easily becomes linked with loyaltynto foreign movements (“intemationalnsocialism” or the “international left”)naimed against one’s own homeland,nwhich earlier generations did not hesitatento call treason, but which modemsnterm freedom of age’s book serves to remind one ofnthe wisdom of two time-honored notions.nOne is Adam Smith’s statement:nIt is only under the shelter of the civilnmagistrate that the owner of that valuablenproperty which is acquired bynthe labour of many years… can sleepna single night. He is at all times surroundednby unknown enemies, whom,nthough he never provoked, he cannnever appease and from whose injusticenhe can only be protected by thenpowerful arm of the civil magistratencontinually held up to chastise it.nThe other is the need to have those whonfill these protective posts swear an oathnto defend our civilization against allnenemies, foreign and domestic. DnThe Pursuit of PuiposelessnessnPeter Goldman and Tony Fuller:nCharlie Company: What VietnamnDid to Us; Newsweek/William Morrow;nNew York.nby James HamiltonnX* ifteen years have elapsed since PresidentnLyndon Johnson abandoned his responsibilitiesnas commander in chief of annation at war to devote his energies tonthe pursuit of an elusive peace. Overnseven years have passed since the NorthnVietnamese forces rolled through SouthnVietaam and obliterated any hope that anMr. Hamilton is a free-lance writer.nnn”decent interval” would intervene betweennthe departure of American troopsnand the annihilation of our former alliesnin Southeast Asia. Long after “Peace withnHonor” became the final cliche of UnitednStates involvement in Vietnam, the carnagencontinues. The nation now has anVietnam Memorial and the veterans havenhad their parade, but we have effectivelynsuppressed any public discussion of whynwe lost that seedy war.nPeter Goldman and Tony Fuller, staffnmembers of Newsweek, surveyed thenmembers of Charlie Company of thenFirst Army 10 to 12 years after their remmnfrom Vietnam. Charlie Companynhad engaged in some of the heaviestnfighting of 1968 and 1969, and 12 of itsn