that has “always” occupied that region —rnor at least, that has been there in historicrntimes. Despite all evidence to the contrary,rnif Kennewick Man died on whatrneventually became lands of a particularrntribe, he must have been an ancestor ofrnthat tribe.rnThe Kennewick saga is depressing inrndie extreme. Within weeks of the skeleton’srndiscovery, it was in the custody ofrnthe Army Corps of Engineers, whichrnmade it clear that, as in all such cases, itrnwas going to return the bones forthwithrnto its proper and natural owners —thernneighboring Indian tribes. The Corpsrnwas prevented only by the legal interventionrnof archaeologists, supported by arnquirkv body of Nordic racial theoristsrncalled the Asatru Folk Assembly, whornclaimed Kennewick Man as a relative.rnMeanwhile, intimidated by NAGPRA,rnneither the Corps nor the Department ofrnthe Interior did anything with the bones:rnGod forbid they should undertake anyrnkind of research.rnThe battle over “Mr. Kennewick” hasrnsince worked its way through the courtsrnand the federal bureaucracy; at everyrnstage, officialdom has made no secret ofrnits desire to give the bones back to theirrnputative Indian owners. In the process,rnthe U.S. Army has pulled such amazingrnstunts as burying the site with dirt andrnboulders and planting trees over the area,rnin effect wantonly destroying a crucial archaeologicalrnmonument and making itrnimpossible to deduce anything about thernskeleton’s context. Supposedly, it was operatingrnin response to “concern” from thernWhite House, which normally does notrnexpress such passion about technical disputesrnin the realm of archaeology. Otherrnportions of the skeleton have alreadyrnbeen “lost,” which, in terms of its historicalrnimportance, is akin to “misplacing” arncopy of the Declaration of Independence.rnAt the start of this year, the JusticernDepartment determined that KennewickrnMan was a Native American, on therngrounds of his age: The bones were 9,000rnyears old, a date which somehow “eliminatedrntheories” that he could be eitherrnAsian or European. Since only Indiansrnwere here at that point, the bones werernIndian, Q.E.D. At the time of this writing,rnthe disposal of the bones remains unclear,rnbut we should expect the worst.rnWe can also wonder whether federal authoritiesrnwill permit any future embarrassmentsrnof this sort, so that comparablernfinds over the next few years are likely tornbe, literally and figuratively, buried immediately.rn. . . [F]or all its good intentions, NAGPRArnhas become a deeply dangerous law,rna warrant for obscurantism and vandalismrn—in short, a public scandal. If evenrnthe Kennewick disaster does not force usrnto change the law, we might as well givernup any hope for studying the archaeologyrnof the Americas and just do what the federalrngovernment does: rely uncriticallyrnon Indian creation myths.rnPhilip ]enkins is Distinguished Professorrnof History and Religious Studies atrnPennsylvania State University. Thisrnarticle first appeared in the April 2000rnPOLITICSrnRepudiating thernNational Debtrnby Murray N. RothbardrnBefore the Reagan era, conservativesrnwere clear about how they felt aboutrndeficits and the public debt: a balancedrnbudget was good, and deficits and thernpublic debt were bad, piled up by freespendingrnKeynesians and socialists, whornabsurdly proclaimed that there was nothingrnwrong or onerous about the publicrndebt. In the famous words of the left-Keynesianrnapostle of “functional finance,”rnProfessor Abba Lerner, there is nothingrnwrong with the public debt because “wernowe it to ourselves.” In those days, atrnleast, conservatives were astute enough tornrealize that it made an enormous amountrnof difference whether—slicing throughrnthe obfuscatory collective nouns—one isrna member of the “we” (the burdened taxpayer)rnor of the “ourselves” (those livingrnoff the proceeds of taxation).rnSince Reagan, however, intellectualpoliticalrnlife has gone topsy-turvy. Conservativesrnand allegedly “free-market”rneconomists have turned handsprings tryingrnto find new reasons why “deficitsrndon’t matter,” why we should all relaxrnand enjoy the process. Perhaps the mostrnabsurd argument of Reaganomists wasrnthat we should not worry about growingrnpublic debt because it is being matchedrnon the federal balance sheet by an expansionrnof public “assets.” Here was a newrntwist on free-market macroeconomics:rnThings are going well because the valuernof government assets is rising! In thatrncase, why not have the government nationalizernall assets outright? Reaganomists,rnindeed, came up with every conceivablernargument for the public debtrnexcept the phrase of Abba Lerner, and Irnam convinced that they did not recyclernthat phrase because it would be difficultrnto sustain with a straight face at a timernwhen foreign ownership of the nationalrndebt is skyrocketing. Even apart from foreignrnownership, it is far more difScult tornsustain the Lerner thesis than before; inrnthe late 1930’s, when Lerner enunciatedrnhis thesis, total federal interest paymentsrnon the public debt were one billion dollars;rnnow they have zoomed to $200 billion,rnthe third-largest item in the federalrnbudget, after the military and Social Security:rnThe “we” are looking ever shabbierrncompared to the “ourselves.”rnTo think sensibly about the publicrndebt, we first have to go back to first principlesrnand consider debt in general. Putrnsimply, a credit transaction occurs whenrnC, the creditor, transfers a sum of moneyrn(say $1,000) to D, the debtor, in exchangernfor a promise that D will repay Crnin a year’s time the principal plus interest.rnIf the agreed interest rate on the transactionrnis ten percent, then the debtor obligatesrnhimself to pay in a year’s time $1,100rnto the creditor. This repayment completesrnthe transaction, which, in contrastrnto a regular sale, takes place over time.rnSo far, it is clear that there is nothingrn”wrong” with private debt. As with anyrnprivate trade or exchange on the market,rnboth parties to the exchange benefit, andrnno one loses. But suppose that the debtorrnis foolish, gets himself in over his head,rnand then finds that he can’t repay thernsum he had agreed on? This, of course, isrna risk incurred by debt, and the debtorrnhad better keep his debts down to whatrnhe can surely repay. But this is not arnproblem of debt alone. Any consumerrnmay spend foolishly; a man may blow hisrnentire paycheck on an expensive trinketrnand then find that he can’t feed his family.rnSo consumer foolishness is hardly arnproblem confined to debt alone. Butrnthere is one crucial difference: If a manrngets in over his head and he can’t pay, therncreditor suffers too, because the debtorrnhas failed to return the creditor’s property.rnIn a profound sense, the debtor whornfails to repay the $1,100 owed to the creditorrnhas stolen property that belongs tornthe creditor; we have here not simply arncivil debt, but a tort, an aggression againstrnanother’s property.rnJULY 2001/43rnrnrn