Free Martha?

To the Editor:

I was surprised to read January’s “Perspective” on Martha Stewart. If she lied when she said “she had a standing order to sell the stock if the price went below $60.00,” and that statement was made in the context of a criminal investigation, she could be guilty of obstruction of justice, whether or not the statement was made under oath. That offense may be unrelated to the SEC’s insider trading charge against her, which is a civil charge. Furthermore, the following statement in my opinion is way off base: “When the government, wielding unjust statutes, invades your privacy by asking why you sold something you own, do you owe it the truth?” You do not owe the government an answer, unless you are under oath and do not plead the Fifth—you can say that you decline to answer. But there is certainly no justification for a bald lie.

—George Rowe, Jr.

Irvington-on-Hudson

To the Editor:

I commend Sheldon Richman for his remarks in support of Martha Stewart. It seems to me that a widespread call for repeal of the insider trading law is in order. How can we single out one group of people, stamp “insider” on their foreheads, and have a special law that applies to them and no one else? Shouldn’t the law apply to everyone?

Since Martha Stewart isn’t really an insider, maybe the SEC is planning to apply the law to everyone. Many market advisory services monitor insider-trading activity and use it to indicate likely stock price movement. I fail to see how these people (me included) are any less guilty than Martha. Guilty, that is, of trading stock based on the best available information. I thought that was supposed to be a good thing.

—Dan Fernandes

by e-mail

Who or What Creates Prosperity?

To the Editor:

Please allow me to quibble with one word in Donald Boudreaux’s otherwise excellent column in the January issue of Ideas on Liberty [“Technology in Perspective”]. Near the end of the first page he stated that freedom “creates” prosperity. I stress to my students that freedom “allows” prosperity. Free people do the creating. An outside force does not impose prosperity on them. This difference in emphasis is, to me, significant.

—Roger Clites

Milligan College, Tennessee

Don Boudreaux replies:

I agree with Roger Clites that freedom allows people to create prosperity. It does not by itself—as if it were an independent, volitional force—create prosperity. My column in the November 2002 issue, “The Wrecking Ball and the Prosperity Tower,” emphasizes this point. Thanks to Mr. Clites for pointing out my careless wording.