EVERYWHERE, PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP TO THE IDEA THAT SOCIAL engineering, central planning, and socialist measures in general are bad ideas. The best means to achieve peace, prosperity, and economic progress is a greater reliance on the price and profit system.

THE ADVOCATES OF EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE castigate the market for its inherent unfairness. Instead of the “anarchy” of free enterprise, they propose that all wages be set on the basis of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.

These would be determined by boards of “experts,” and tribunals of bureaucrats and civil servants, who substitute their “objective” assessments for the chaotic judgment of a system of competitive labor markets.

IN THE MAY 1978 ISSUE OF THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, Roberta Robb attributed between 58.9 percent (standardized for occupation and industry) and 75.4 percent (not standardized) of the male-female Ontario earnings differential in 1971 to sexual discrimination. We should like to point out several flaws in the analysis.

LEFT-WING FEMINISM DENIES DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND women. As a result, advocates of this position call for a change in societal approaches to gender-based issues. This, in turn, leads to a call for a change in public policies.

However, the failure to acknowledge differences is very different from the actual elimination of such differences. An exploration of the intersection of feminism and public policy provides an effective demonstration of some of their effects.

FOR YEARS, INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS HAS OFFERED interested and able students opportunities to experience the lessons of competition, develop physical and leadership skills, be a part of a team, and perhaps most important, enjoy themselves. Good intercollegiate athletics programs require competitive parity, universal and consistently applied rules, and an opportunity to participate according to one’s interest and ability.

“The function of battle is destruction; of competition, construction.”
– Ludwig von Mises

WHEN I WAS BROUGHT UP AS A YOUNG LAD, ONE OF THE MORAL imperatives instilled in me was, “Don’t hit girls.”

Although I have rebelled against many of the early teachings to which I was exposed, that one always seemed reasonable. I have followed this bit of folk wisdom in my own life and have attempted to pass it along to my son, now aged ten.

MICHAEL LEVIN’S FEMINISM AND FREEDOM1 IS THE WORK OF a supremely courageous individual. Women’s liberation has so permeated the universities that any attack on this philosophy is bound to create personal difficulties for a male author.

WHEN IT COMES TO DISCRIMINATION, GOVERNMENT IS OFTEN quick to act—for better or for worse. In some instances, government acts to end what it perceives as discrimination against women, minorities, people with alternate lifestyles, and others.

SHOULD PEOPLE BE FREE TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST OTHERS?1 At first glance, the only proper answer to this question would appear to be a resounding (and horrified), “No!” However, on further reflection, things are not quite so simple.