Sax and Violence

SAX AND VIOLENCE

1: The Problem with Equistan

In a parallel universe next door, there exists a state called Equistan. Like every other state, Equistan has its share of social problems. Currently, its most pressing problems stem from a stark sex disparity within its population: men outnumber women four-to-one. This disparity—whose origin need not here concern us—understandably poses severe courtship challenges for the collective.

Fortunately, Equistan is also a seasoned democracy. It is governed by wise and noble politicians, duly elected by informed and law-abiding voters. By passing just the right type of legislation, the citizens of Equistan have devised an ingenious and enlightened remedy for the courtship challenges they face. But before discussing that remedy, let us first describe those challenges in detail.

The male libido, truth be told, is a troublesome creature. It urgently demands satisfaction, and stubbornly resists suppression. Alas, the women of Equistan, who might satisfy it when it is expressed, are regrettably few in number. Worse, they generally prefer to mate wisely rather than widely. Hence, demand for their amorous affections hugely exceeds supply, causing a severe satisfaction shortage in the male libido department.

Now, if the men of Equistan were content to stew stoically in carnal frustration, this sorry state of affairs might be permitted to persist. After all, for women, it entails correlative advantages: given the general glut of men, they can have their pick of prospective suitors, and easily enter into consummations devoutly to be wished. After all, who is to say which sex should prosper, and which sex should suffer?

But all else is not equal. Men are biologically primed, when their key satisfactions are thwarted, to rebel violently and to initiate force, in efforts to achieve those satisfactions nonetheless. This is especially so if their time preference is high, their empathic concern is low, and their courtship options are limited. In short, a significant subset of men—the more impatient, heartless, and deprived among them—will, when denied libidinal outlet, attempt to thrust their immodest attentions upon unwilling women. In many cases, inevitably, they will succeed, being both more physically powerful and callously cunning. They will harass women, molest women, and rape women. Moreover, the women bearing the brunt of this violence will, no less inevitably, be the vulnerable and the neglected, the poor and the underage. Furthermore, so insistent is male libido that even the prospect of harsh punishment, reliably delivered, is unlikely to effectively deter many criminal perpetrators. Finally, although polyandry—several men mating with one woman—might see to be a potential solution to the problem (and indeed, prostitutes do command handsome fees in Equistan) most women still prefer monogamy, and jealousy among men over women inclined to polyandry is itself a recipe for violent conflict.

However, it is not only the welfare of women that the skewed demographics of Equistan harm: no, it is also the welfare of men. As already mentioned, there being a glut of males, women are spoilt for choice in matters of courtship and dalliance. Hence, it is only natural that women in this superior position—who, like all human beings, keenly pursue their own interests—should act more selfishly than selflessly in matters of the heart. In particular, to maximize their own romantic and erotic satisfaction, women should selectively pursue those men who, as the saying goes, have what women want—that is, men who possess in abundance such stereotypically masculine qualities as courage and charm, wealth and status, height and handsomeness, industry and ingenuity—as well as more generic ones—such as thoughtfulness and sensitivity, humour and cheerfulness, forbearance and perseverance—not to mention more flippant ones, such a pair of firm buttocks.

Now, men do not exhibit such desirable characteristics uniformly; indeed, many men lack them quite conspicuously. Moreover, among such men, there is a large subset that cannot in any significant sense be held responsible for their plight. Members of this luckless subset are tolerably decent blokes; fate, or life, has simply dealt them a cruel hand. Mother Nature has underendowed them to begin with, or Outrageous Fortune has squandered whatever endowment they originally had. Such men valiantly play the hand they have been dealt; but their paltry pair of twos, however deftly deployed, cannot compete with the fancy full houses of alpha males. Such defective men are, through no fault of their own, necessarily less desirable to women in the match-making market. In particular, there is little demand among dames for men who are awkward, uncertain, insolvent, directionless, predictable, hapless and flatulent. Accordingly, women, left to their own devices, discriminate against them.

Now, even under normal circumstances, the game of love is hardly fair: when both sexes are left free to pursue one another, there will be heartbroken losers as well as loved-up winners. However, the skewed demographics of Equistan ensure that the ratio of female winners-to-losers is unnaturally high and the ratio of male winners-to-losers is unnaturally low. That is, mediocre women are nearly sure to bag a quality man, whereas quality men cannot be assured of bagging even a mediocre woman. The women of Equistan therefore enjoy an unearned privilege and the men of Equistan suffer an undeserved plight. In short, men are beggars and women are choosers. Adding indignity to inequity, men of modest endowments must watch men of greater distinction seduce women whom, were it not for the glut of men, they have been able to seduce themselves, thereby nurturing further resentment and aggression.

To summarize the source and dimensions of Equistan’s most pressing problem: men outnumber women several-fold; the cupidity of men, combined with the scarcity of women, guarantees the widespread frustration of men’s erotic aspirations; in consequence, some men will violate women in an attempt to alleviate that frustration; and most women, pursuing their own amatory ambitions, will discriminate against otherwise deserving men. Thus, owing to the stark sex disparity in Equistan, much higher levels of sexual aggression and sexual inequality will occur than would have occurred under more normal circumstances. Some solution to the problem—all people of good conscience agree—is urgently called for.

2: The Solution for Equistan

So: how has the democratically elected government of Equistan responded? Thankfully, it has adopted a pragmatic and hands-on approach. It has decided to bow to grim necessity rather than to flirt with idle possibility. It has acknowledged, in a testament to its maturity, that lesser evils must sometimes be embraced in order that greater evils be prevented. It has sought to use its legitimate sovereign power, gained via the mandate of the majority, to curtail the specific freedoms of some citizens, so as to promote the general welfare of all citizens. Such drastic action is abundantly justified given the stark sex disparity that fosters intolerable levels of aggression and inequality. The masses, at a loss, can no longer be left to themselves: a benign and far-seeing government must intervene to fix by design what has gone awry by accident. In particular, some individuals, who would otherwise behave selfishly, and perpetuate the unbearable status quo, must be compelled to make sacrifices, so that the status quo can become more bearable.

In particular, the government has decided to levy a legal sax on all those women of Equistan who meet the relevant eligibility criteria. The word “sax” is a contraction of two words: sex and tax. As the first word implies, the sax concerns goods and services of an erotic kind; as the second word implies, the sax entails an unwelcome cost to be borne by those on whom it is levied.

Most Equistanian woman, especially those of child-bearing age, have a sex life of some sort; that is, they have sexual encounters with men, of varying frequency, intensity, and duration. (For the sake of expository simplicity, complications due to homosexuality are ignored.) Previously, all such encounters—if they took place voluntarily between adults, who were breaking no prior contracts with other adults—were legally permitted. Conversely, all such encounters that took place involuntarily—in particular, all encounters where men sexually violated women—were legally prohibited. With the introduction of saxation, however, targeted exceptions have been made to these general rules, where the government so authorizes. Some sexual encounters, between consenting and contract-keeping men and women, are now prohibited; and some sexual encounters between men and women, of a sort liable to conduce to the welfare of society overall, are now compulsory.

Here are the particulars. Subject to certain exemptions, Equistanian women of child-bearing age, who have more than a minimal sex life, are required to donate a portion of that sex life to the government, who can then reallocate it to Equistanian men who meet relevant eligibility criteria. These are principally men who would be less likely to otherwise secure a satisfactory erotic outlet. In concrete terms, many Equistanian women are forced to engage in non-consensual sex acts with less desirable Equistanian men, with the frequency, intensity, and duration of those acts carefully regulated by duly approved authorities in accordance with relevant sax laws.

True, this is not an ideal state of affairs, as the perpetual grumbling of Equistanian women attests; however, it is the price to be paid for a stable society in which the sex ratio is so precariously unbalanced. The fact is, compelling arguments can be made in defence of the institution of saxation. Indeed, these arguments are so compelling that nearly everyone in Equistan is agreed upon their soundness: the sage and saintly government; the average man the street; and even the women bearing the burden of the sax.

In the first instance, it is conceded that, when considered in isolation, saxation is something of a bane. All else equal, it is bad that Equistanian women are coerced into having sex with men they do not desire, on pain of officers of the law, with guns and badges, coming around to physically subdue them, and then convey them to a locked cage for an extended duration, with only thieves, fraudsters, thugs, and murderers for company. However, it is better that Equistanian women comply with the law than that they do not; and only the government, with its legitimate authority, and monopoly on the use of force, is capable of providing an ample society-wide incentive for them to comply with the law. So, certainly, saxation is an evil; but its justification, again, it that it is a necessary one. Why?

To recap, males in Equistan outnumber females four-to-one. This ultimately incentivizes more men to sexually violate vulnerable women, and most women to discriminate sexually against deserving men. The aggression and inequality entailed are clearly intolerable. The great compensating virtue of saxation is that it curtails both. How?

In the first place, if less desirable males are assured of having at least some sexual encounters with women—a basic minimum coitus if you will—and these encounters can managed in an orderly way with public oversight, then those men will be less inclined to force their attentions upon women privately, in more violent and unpredictable ways. Thus, saxation ultimately protects women, on balance.

In the second place, a state of affairs where most women mate solely with regard to their own interest, so that many less desirable but still deserving men go wholly unsatisfied, is clearly inferior to a state of affairs where those women mate at least partly with regard to the interest of those men, thereby at least partly satisfying them in line with their just deserts. In the latter state of affairs, erotic goods are distributed more equitably between both sexes, rather than being distributed disproportionately towards women. Thus, where women would be naturally selfish, saxation compels them to be more selfless. Sharing is caring, after all. It is self-evidently better that everybody have some pie, even if some people have more, than that some people have all the pie, and other people none. Thus, saxation ultimately leads to greater equality. As a bonus, it schools inconsiderate women in the virtues of generosity.

It should be emphasized that the levying of a sax upon Equistanian women is not tantamount to sexual slavery. A slave is defined as someone whose entire life is at someone else’s disposal, as someone who cannot ever operate outside the service of their master. As such slavery is an abomination, and one quite rightly consigned to the pages of Equistanian history. On this definition, however, Equistanian women are clearly not slaves, for their sex lives do not wholly belong to the government. To repeat, Equistanian women are required only to give up a portion of their sex lives for public use; the rest of their sex lives they are at complete liberty to dispose of privately however they wish. Moreover, the portion they are require to give up is typically modest, nearly always less than 50%. So to describe Equistanian women as enslaved is to engage in hysterical hyperbole.

Now, it is true that the government retains the unilateral discretion to determine exactly what portion of women’s sex lives should be allocated publically. It is not as if Equistanian women can bargain with the powers-that-be over the magnitude of that allocation: they must obey the law, after all. But bear in mind that Equistan is a functioning democracy, not a dicktatorship. Enfranchisement is universal: every woman, no less than every man, is guaranteed the right to vote. Indeed, this eloquently underlines the deep respect accorded to women in Equistanian society. Hence, via the ballot box, women can make their collective voice heard, by influencing which party gets elected to levy the sax on them. This collective voice duly constrains the magnitude of the sax levied: governments, after all, cannot afford to systematically alienate a large voting constituency by unduly oppressing them, for then an opposition party could capitalize electorally upon such political miscalculations.

Admittedly, Equistanian women are in a four-to-one minority, so that, in the aggregate, Equistanian men—who, as a voting block, tend to be in favour of higher saxation—command far greater electoral power. But no system of government is perfect. As a distinguished elder statesman once remarked, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.1 Equistanian women should therefore count their blessings. As a smart and selfless Vulcan once remarked, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.2

Another argument for saxation—apart from the fact that it exempts very young and very old women, for obvious reasons of morality and taste—is that it is desirably progressive. That is, sax is targeted at some women, but not others, in rising proportion to the degree to which they manifest two key capacities, which tend to correlate positively: first, the capacity to lead a personally fulfilling sex life; and second, the capacity to fulfil the sex lives of others. Youth is strong predictor of both capacities. Hence, maidens—fresh-faced, frisky, and fit—are more heavily saxed than matrons—pudgy, ponderous, and portly.

Here is the full rationale. First: given their relative beauty and vigor, maidens are better able to attract romantically desirable men, and to physically enjoy erotic encounters. Accordingly, their romantic and erotic satisfactions are relatively greater. Hence, maidens can afford to lose more personal satisfaction than matrons can, without their remaining levels of satisfaction becoming unacceptable low. That is, maidens can personally afford to be saxed more. Second: again, given their relative beauty and vigor, maidens are better able to satisfy men’s restless libidos, and please them physically in erotic encounters. Accordingly, the libidinal and erotic satisfactions they facilitate are relatively greater. Hence, maidens cause a greater gain in satisfaction among men than matrons do, thereby more efficiently realizing the goals of saxation. That is, maidens are a richer source of sax. Ultimately, then, maidens are saxed more heavily than matrons because of their enhanced capacity to bear and contribute sax. A distinguished economist once summed up the reasoning this way: from each according to her ability, to each according to his need.3

Unsurprisingly, the question of how must sax should be optimally levied is a matter of unending controversy. A naïve view, popular among non-economists, is that higher rates of saxation necessarily translate into greater sax revenue. Not so: for saxation not only transfer portions of one’s sex life to others, it also diminishes the incentive to have a sex life in the first place. True, a 1% rate of saxation is likely to raise more sax than a 0% rate, because the trivial contributions required of Equistan women are unlikely to deter them from pursuing about as many passionate encounters as they otherwise would have. However, a punitive rate of saxation—of say 99%–would likely lead most women to shut down their sex lives completely. It follows that somewhere between 1% and 99% is a sweet spot that maximizes sax revenue. Economists debate exactly where that sweet spot lies, as well as the general shape of the so-called “Fluffer” curve, which charts sax revenue against sax rate. 4  Most sophisticated commenters agree, however, that saxation should not be so onerous as to encourage Equistanian women to embrace chastity as a defensive manoeuvre.

Another factor which renders the sax more tolerable is that there are legitimate ways to avoid it. Women who are going through a dry spell in their love lives—who are currently devoid of erotic income, so to speak—can apply for a temporary exemption. Equally, women who privately engage in charitable sexual activities—compassionately catering for their frustrated fellow man, but not personally profiting from the experience—can apply for a sax deduction. In addition, Equistanian women can hire professional sax consultants, whose job it is to identify how they might minimize their sax contribution while still respecting sax law.

It goes without saying that, in order for sax to be levied properly and proportionately, the entire sex lives of Equistanian women must be carefully catalogued to allow for inspection by the authorities in targeted or random audits. The required appropriate paperwork must be filled out in full, and filed annually by the stated deadline. Delays and non-compliance are appropriately punished by additional erotic penalties. Some economists do complain, however, about the deadweight loss entailed by such activities: the time and effort spent all round in an attempt to minimize sax liability might be better channelled into more socially productive activities, such as passionate flings, thrilling courtships, and ribald debauchery.

Note that sax avoidance, a licit activity, must be clearly distinguished from sax evasion, an illicit one. Sax evasion occurs when Equistanian women attempt to cheat on their saxes by not contributing their fair share. Women—ever the fickle sex—are perpetually tempted have a bit of hanky-panky on the side, or worse still, an extended affair with the man of their dreams, all completely out of sight of the legitimate saxing authorities. This clandestine “pink market” deprives the exchequer yearly of untold levels of erotic activity that might otherwise be socially distributed.

Thankfully, the law-abiding citizens of Equistan are united in opposing such criminal and immoral breaches. They often assist the authorities by squealing on despicable sax cheats who have the gall to shirk their social duty. Moreover, law-abiding sax payers reserve special contempt for the elite 1%–those paragons of womanhood who, despite being voluptuous, always seem to escape the saxman’s net lightly. Even when such one-percenters abide by the letter of the law, they flagrantly violate its spirit by energetically minimizing their sax liability, via complex schemes that exploit sax loopholes the government has not yet managed to close, and in some cases, even by inducing politicians to give them sweetheart deals in return for being their personal sweethearts. Protest movements have sprung up in opposition, prompting many one-percenters into making defensive once-off sax contributions to defuse mass antagonism.

Of course, no system of saxation is perfect. Special interest groups among Equistanian women have succeeded in mobilizing politically, and securing lower rates of sax in return for pledging their support for particular politicians. As a result, the sax system has, over time, and despite its noble original purpose, become both prejudicial in its application, and labyrinthine in its complexity. Equistanian women can no longer be sure that their personal sax contributions are equitable, and they must endure endless bureaucratic headaches. Hence, calls to reform the sax system abound. Some economists have gone so far to suggest that, instead of compelling some eligible women to fondle and others to fornicate, in line with their estimated capacity to contribute, it might be better simply to compel all eligible women to discharge their sax liabilities orally. Such a policy, though initially hard to swallow, would at least have the merit of simplicity and transparency. Nonetheless, on balance, the vast majority of Equistanians agree that, whatever kinks need to be ironed out of the system, the benefits of saxation on the whole outweigh its costs.

3: Resistance to the Solution

Now, every society has its radical elements—its hard-core malcontents, its kooky complainers, its libertarian loons. A reactionary band of self-styled “liberty belles” continue to advocate a completely unregulated, laissez-faire, “casino-copulation” approach to sexual relations between men and women. In their view, intervention is only ever justified if erotic activities between adults are non-consensual, or if prior contracts concerning such activities have been violated; apart from that, the government, or any other protection agency, should mind its own business. Liberty belles contend that women, being people rather than property, entirely own themselves, and that their individual rights, conferred by God or nature, trump any utilitarian considerations of collective obligation. They crudely paraphrase the Bible, asserting that “shagging was made for women and not women for the shagging”.5 In other words, no one, including the government, is entitled to even the slightest portion of women’s sex lives. Not only may women not be commanded to have sex with men, they may not be commanded to canoodle with them—no, not even if the majority of voters elect political representatives who pass laws to authorize such acts in an effort to solve an otherwise intractable social crisis. Each individual woman is utterly sovereign and inviolable: come hell or high water, her autonomy and dignity cannot be sacrificed to achieve any other end. In other words, liberty belles seek the complete separation of sexuality and state.

The inspirational leader of the liberty belles—the laissez-fairest of them, so to speak—is Randy Ayn, a figure as indomitable as she is diminutive. In her literary masterpiece, Atlas Shagged, she extols the virtue of selfishness, and decries the vice of altruism.6 Her key contention is this: unless erotic encounters with a partner serve the goal of pleasing oneself, they are immoral: it is perverse to abnegate oneself so that only one’s partner is sexually satisfied. She further claims that this contention is objectively justified by reason and not a function of subjective whims. In addition, she counsels that Mozart never be played during love-making, but warmly recommends sharing a post-coital cigarette.7

As part of their holier-than-thou moral crusade, the liberty belles insist that, not only it is wrong to sax Equistanian women, but saxing them brings out the worst in citizens generally. They claim, for example, that men guaranteed a basic minimum coitus lose sight of its charitable nature, and come to regard it as a basic entitlement. Thereafter, they become lazy in matters of love, lacking any incentive to hone their seduction skills, or master the art of chivalry. In some areas of Equistan, indeed, three generations of men have been brought up on sensual services, and have never had a wife or girlfriend of their own. Moreover, the moral rot extends to saxed women too. Matrons favor higher saxes being levied upon maidens, not because they approve of saxation in principle, but out of malicious envy. Matrons feel better about themselves when society penalizes maidens, for daring to look lovelier than they do.

In addition, many liberty belles subscribe to the Orgasmic School of economics,8 a heterodox branch boasting by such intellectual heavyweights as (Selma) von Hayek.9 They claim that, with the freedom to transact sexually being hampered by government intervention, the quality of sexual satisfaction in society must necessarily decrease, because third-parties cannot solve the erotic calculation problem.10 As pioneering economist—Lewd … somebody or other—whispered to his wife on their honeymoon, sax loopholes are the orifices though which copulation breathes.11

Happily, the liberty belles are only a fringe group with little political influence in Equistan. Averse to compromise, and prone to factionalism, they have never entered the political mainstream, where they might seriously hamstring the proper operation of democratic government. Their extremism, however, can still exert a pernicious influence on the impressionable. For example, the liberty belles have convinced many younger women to stop participating in the democratic process altogether, thereby foreclosing the one avenue available to them to moderate sax policy.

In addition, some liberty belles are individually a menace to society. The most radical among them—the amorous anarchists—advocate violent resistance again saxation. They take the eccentric view that, if government agents come to collect sax, they may be repelled by force of arms, because saxation is nothing more than legalized rape, and it would be perfectly legitimate to repel a citizen rapist by force of arms. Clearly, some people have a problem with authority, and this psychological defect prompts them to invent strained and misleading analogies.

Much more reasonable are those liberty belles who try to bring about constructive changes through regular political channels. For example, many liberty belles make a big deal out of sax freedom day every year, which falls sometime in April, and marks that point in the calendar when women’s sex lives become their own. This helps to ensure that levels of saxation stay within reasonable bounds. Also worth listening too are those liberty belles who speak of drafting a constitution that will strictly limit the powers of government to levy sax. One suggestion, for example, is that sax be levied only by state or local authorities, who will be more accountable to, and hence better represent, the interests of local communities who elect them, thereby helping to ensure that erotic services are socially distributed more justly and efficiently.

Ultimately, though, the free-for-all philosophy of the liberty belles is unforgivably offensive for two reasons: its cold-hearted indifference to the plight of victims; and its neglect of how the real world operates.

In the first place, endorsing sexual libertarianism seems to require an empathy deficit bordering on the pathological. The liberty belles obsess about the rights of Equistanian women to their own sex lives. But do they ever spare a thought about the Equistanian men so chronically deprived of sex that they languish perpetually in depths of despair? Do they ever lift a finger, or a petticoat, to help such men, whose sexual self-esteem is at rock bottom? Do they care one whit about those poor blokes who would slip through the sexual safety net if amorous anarchy were left to prevail? No: it’s all about me, me, me—an orgy of egocentricity. Liberty belles self-servingly deny just how high sexual satisfaction ranks on the preference schedule of the average male. If pressed, many men—no, most men—would demonstrate a preference for the guarantee of erotic encounters over the guarantee of most other coveted goods and services, including healthcare, housing, and higher-level education, whose social provision few people would consider illegitimate.

In the second place, endorsing sexual libertarianism leads Equistanian women to ironically score a massive own goal for their own sex. They do not seem to grasp that, to better protect their bodily temples overall, they must be prepared to allow the government access to its altar. The choice is not, as the liberty belles insinuate, between having sex that is consensual or having sex that is non-consensual. Rather, given the skewed demographics of Equistan, the choice is between (a) having non-consensual sex under unpredictable and violent circumstances, when raped privately by psychopathic men, or (b) between having non-consensual sex under orderly and tolerable conditions, when invited by law-abiding government officials to donate a portion of one’s sexual services for the greater social good. The government’s sensible goal is harm reduction on balance.  There is little reason to believe that the people, left to their own devices, could reduce sexual predation against women by any other arrangement. The idealism of liberty belles—largely attributable to their youth and immaturity—leads them astray: they cannot understand how, in the real world where tragic trade-offs are inevitable, prudent pragmatism works better than stubborn principle. The flexible reed, which bends in the wind, does better than the rigid one, which breaks.

At any rate, for the foreseeable future in Equistan, nothing is certain—except death and saxes.

Footnotes

1 “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Sir Winston Churchill, House of Commons speech, Nov 11th, 1947.

2 Spock: “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh…” Kirk: “…the needs of the few.” Spock: “Or the one.”

Dialogue from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).

3 “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

Marx, K. (1875/1974). Critique of the Gotha Programme. In (D. Fernbach (Ed.) The First International and After (pp. 339-359). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

4 Fullerton, D. (2008). Laffer curve. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E Blume (Eds.). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition (p. 839). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

5 “And he said unto them, ‘The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.’”

Mark 2:27, The Bible, King James Version.

6 Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Random House.

7 Rothbard, M. (circa 1960). Mozart was a red.

See: << http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8 >>.

8 Machlup, F. (1982). Austrian economics. In Encyclopedia of Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

9 Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10 von Mises, L. (1920/1935). Economic calculation in the socialist commonwealth (Trans S. Adler). In F. A. Hayek (Ed.) Collectivist economic planning (pp. 87-130). London: George Routledge & Sons.

11 See: << http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/11/what-ludwig-von-mises-taught-gottfried-haberler-who-taught-paul-samuelson-about-tax-loopholes/ >>