BOOK REVIEW 61 differences, on the lines of the influential work of Robert Nozick3 arguing that however unequal the existing distribution of income, redistribution would be uacceptable as it would violate certain individual rights that are held to be sacrosanct. However flawed Nozick's own thesis,4 it would have at least provided Bauer with a prima facie moral argument on which to peg his inegalitarian views. As things stand however, Bauer provides us in the end with no reason why we should accept that income differenes are just because they reflect differences in abilities, and that the state should not try and influence the distribution of income. This is hardly surprising, becase the empirical, evidence is overwhelmingly against Bauer in this respect, and one wonders whether he has ever seriously looked at the numerous published reports and research work demonstrating precisely the oppoite ca IIT Yet it is the view that income differences are deserved ones that forms the basis for further arguments in favour of the market system. Thus, "in an open and free society political action which deliberately aimed to minimize or even remove economic differences (i e, differences in income and wealth) would entail such extensive coercion that the society would cease to be open and free . there is an underlying contradiction in egalitarianism in open societies" (p 8). Having made this point, Bauer characteristically proceeds as though it were self-evidently true; he adduces not a single instance where attempts at redistribution have entailed political coercion. I am not claiming that such examples are non-existent—some would point to the implementation of 'ujarnaa' in Tanzania—but simply that Bauer has not bothered to provide evidence for his extreme views. This is perhaps not accidental, for, if one were to look for examples, they would hardly bolster his case Patently inegalitarian regimes such as Brazil, or worse, Chile under Pinochet, have been some of the most coercive; on the other hand, in others where redistributive public policy has had noticeably beneficial effects—such as Sri Lanka—there is no evidence that this has required a coercive political apparatus, Any historically informed view of the question would have seen the use of coercive methods as contingent on the specific social and