I understand the elements of restorative justice, and restorative mediations as an excellent alternative to litigation and other forms of adversarial dispute resolution.  I have practiced it and I believe it signals the next phase in the evolution of dispute resolution.
However, Professor Rosemont displays an astounding ignorance of economics and civil liberties which acted as a barrier to my acceptance of his otherwise worthy subject of restorative justice.  A common fallacy, repeated there, is that if I am rich, I must have made others poor:
"...and as the policies and actions of the United States, adamant in pressing this unfettered capitalism on the rest of the world, are doing more to exacerbate than alleviate the gross inequalities that contribute so much to the violence in so much of the contemporary world."  I am not sure the Pacific Rim nations, or India, or other emerging economies which have accepted capitalism would agree.  I think I can conclusively prove he is wrong by pointing to their astounding increase in their standard of living as they accept capitalism.  Yes, Russia is not as wealthy as when it enslaved Eastern Europe, but that has more to do with its present corruption and the lack of consistent enforcement of civil liberties than it has to do with capitalism.  See below.
Believe it or not, capitalism creates wealth.  It doesn't hoard others' wealth, it adds wealth.  The pie grows, as do the slices we earn. Of course the rich get richer compared to the poor.  The baseline for the poor will never move...the limits for the rich continues to move upward.  Explain to me again why it is bad to create wealth?
He also uses the worn out canard regarding tax cuts....if 40% of the taxpayers in the US do not pay taxes, ANY tax cut will favorably affect "the rich" who actually do pay taxes.  Further, the richest 5% report 36% of income but pay 60% of the taxes (2005, CBO and IRS statistics).  I don't have a problem with that, but tell me again, why is this unfair?
Last, "the rich" and "the poor", in developed nations (I discuss underdeveloped nations below) are not the same people they were 5, 10 or more years ago. When the population moves into higher brackets, they are no longer "the poor".  Further, the richest income earners are those who finally cash in the stock of the company they grew.  They get a one-shot appearance at the top of the heap.  It is their justly deserved award.  Next year it will be someone else, and so on.
Members of the 400 club varied widely from year to year, according to the IRS.  Of the taxpayers who appeared in this group (1992-2000) less than 25% appeared more than once, and less than 13% appeared more than twice.  The large amount of income reflected capital gains - their one and only cash-out.  Why is this bad?  How does this rob others?  These people are the job creators.  They should be encouraged.  When they are, those in the lowest strata, the ones with the new jobs, move up. Studies of families in the lowest quintile show that the vast majority of them do not stay there over a generation.  They move up.  And the "new" families in the lowest quintile posses and earn more than any generation in the lowest quintile ever had, even after taking into account inflation.
And again, "..., respect for first generation rights doesn't cost very much, requires very little effort, is now a formidable bulwark protecting the rich and the powerful, and has thus become  a hindrance to the implementation of social, economic and cultural rights, and of attendant social justice both nationally and internationally."  He is misguided.  The "first generation rights" allow one to become richer, better off, than the generation before.  It certainly does not hinder implementation of social, economic or cultural rights but nurtures them by allowing capitalism to flourish. The first generation rights came first, then came prosperity.  It did not occur the other way around (unless you want to re-write history incorrectly).
How to explain third world poverty?  Scratch a third world country, and you will find no basic civil liberties (certainly not a free press), a controlled economy, probably both, and the result is massive corruption.  It is the lack of these civil liberties and lack of free markets which allows the corruption which in turn creates the violence, degradation, hopelessness, death, wars, starvation, you name it.  It is that country's failure to embrace civil liberties and participate in free markets which dooms them.  Their only hope is the free market and those first generation rights.
I have grave and deep opposition to any idea which purports to help but in fact will sidetrack the two engines which lead us to a better world.


Thomas Zupanc
Associate Professor
St Cloud State University
Herberger College of Business
CH 417
720 4th Ave South
St Cloud MN 56301
(320) 308 6678

-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Shaw
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Truth and Reconciliation

Recently at the LBJ School (U.T.@ Austin), the philosophy department sponsored a symposium in honor of Robert Solomon, recently deceased.  I expect a number of you knew him, or were familiar with his publications on existentialism and/or the emotions.  One of the papers there was presented by Professor Henry Rosemont, Brown University, on the topic of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (attached).  The concept is such a striking departure from the legal forum we take for granted, I got his permission to circulate his article.  It may be of interest to the group to arrange a session on the topic at our Long Beach conference.