Nevertheless, despite these slight exceptions, the overwhelming preponderance of opinion within this community lies in the direction of government interventionism, and dirigisme economics. What accounts for this rather exceptionable behavior? Various theories have been put forth in an attempt to explain this phenomenon. The present paper is devoted to discussing and evaluating several of them [2] .

Before embarking on this task, however, we do well to remark on the fact that ordinarily, in most analyses of group of individual behavior, the analyst does not go too far wrong in relying upon the doctrine of quo bono. That is, most human action can be explained in terms of self-interest. But the Jews, it would appear, offer evidence of being a counter example to this general rule.

Support for affirmative action and gun control on the part of the Jewish community are particularly difficult to understand in this regard. When a plan of coerced racial preferences in education is implemented, it benefits groups such as blacks and Hispanics. But who are the people who lose out when such people are chosen? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jews are over-represented in this category [3] . As for guns, who has not heard of the Warsaw uprising, and of the vicious treatment these people have suffered at Nazi hands. Surely, if the Jews of Germany, Poland and other eastern European countries were heavily armed in the late 1930s, their fate would have likely been less horrific [4] . And this is to say nothing of attacks suffered by Hasidim in neighborhoods such as Crown Heights in Brooklyn, New York. Surely pistols would be of help in quelling such disturbances. Despite the foregoing, Jews as a group have been adamant in championing policies that, it would appear, are directly incompatible with their own self-interest.

2. Intellectuals

2.1. Overrepresentation

Jews are over-represented amongst intellectuals (Seligman, 1994) [5] , and intellectuals tend to take on left wing views on economics [6] . This undoubtedly gives at least some impetus to support for socialism from this segment of the population.

There are several plausible ways in which to define intellectuals. One possibility is to include those who earn a living through the use of abstract reasoning, or as wordsmiths, or as "second hand dealers in ideas" (Hayek, 1990, p. 5). Examples of this category would be professors, journalists, clergy and writers - those who directly or indirectly mold public opinion. A more inclusive definition would add professions in which a high degree of intelligence is required, but where such people are not typically the source of ideas for others. Mises (1972, p. 16) includes "physicians" under this rubric. Others in this category might be physicists, engineers, pharmacists, accountants, architects, etc. An even wider definition would add to this list all of those who think deeply about current events, read widely, keep themselves informed, etc. An operational definition of this third rung of intellectuals would be those who purchase books, keep them at home, frequent libraries, watch news shows on t.v., etc.

Hayek (1990) takes great pains to distinguish intellectuals, in any of these three senses, from experts. The latter are in effect the originators of ideas; the former, the megaphone, or transmission device, with which these ideas are transferred to the general public. His illustration of the economics profession is a telling one. States Hayek (1990, p. 8): "Yet is it not the predominant views of the experts but the views of a minority, mostly of rather doubtful standing in their profession, which are taken up and spread by the intellectuals." Although he does not mention him, reading between the lines one can almost see the name "Galbraith." It is the ideas of this worthy which are transmitted to the average man on the street, even though his are in a small minority within the economics profession, most of which strongly disagrees with his perspective on socialism, protectionism, and the evils of the capitalist system [7] .

Whether we choose the narrow, the medium or the wider definition of intellectual, it cannot be denied that Jewish people are disproportionately represented in these numbers. As for the first category, they are the "talking heads" on television, the professors, the editorialists - in numbers far in excess of their proportion of the population. As for the second, they dominate the professions of medicine, dentistry, psychology, science, etc. And even in the third, when they have jobs as the proverbial "butchers, bakers and candlestick makers," they are still well read, involved in current events, etc., to a greater degree than their counterparts who follow other religious beliefs.

2. Early educational experiences

Why is it that intellectuals, defined as those who engage in the manipulation of political and economic ideas, oppose free enterprise? Nozick (1997) maintains this is due to the fact that these people, when they were in high school, had the highest grades, and the greatest official recognition, but the job market relegates them to a far lower position in the pecking order than at that time. The result: resentment of the system responsible for not giving them their due.

Van den Haag (2000/2001, pp 56-57) rejects this thesis on the grounds that one, the business world does reward people on a basis that is proportional to intelligence and two, "Nozick is quite wrong in believing that superior intelligence is readily rewarded in high schools." Instead, he contends, bouquets are tossed on the basis of athletic prowess.

In my view, Van den Haag's criticisms fall short of the mark. While it cannot be denied that most high school students extol athletics over academics, this is not at all the case for teachers. Further, it is equally true that the brainiacs, nerds and geeks also get their due (if not, perhaps, in inner city high schools, which must be counted as an exception to this rule). There are scholarships, trips to the student versions of the U.N., chess and mathematics tournaments, the debating club, etc. What with the advent of Bill Gates who earns far more than Michael Jordan, the smart kids are coming into their own even the more. Van den Haag is of course correct that athletes, and "tough kids" command more respect in some sense, but this is irrelevant to the point Nozick is making, that the highly intelligent high school student is given a strong ego boost by the adult world. Even when the nerd is being physically bullied, he still has a strong sense of entitlement based on his grade scores and other such recognition.

It of course cannot be denied that there is indeed a positive correlation between intelligence and business success (Murray, 1998), but there are enough exceptions to rile intellectuals. Consider only those in this regard earning a relatively modest salary as an associate professor of literature, while the ex high school class bozo makes it big selling toys or burgers and drives around town in a car far more luxurious than theirs. There can be little doubt that Nozick is telling an important part of the story of the disaffection of the intellectuals when he bases it on their high school experiences.

3. Purposes vs. effects