10. markets. The evidence also suggests that we may have emerged with a sense of guilt because our degree of sacrifice had been far less than those who fought beside us or who fought against us. Criticism of our liberal socio-economic system has in recent years been increasingly on the rise and allegiance to the system, despite all of the evidence that it works, has been eroding away. Its critics attack it on the basis that it is not truly a moral and just system, that like a system of hereditary privilege there are advantages that the successful father passes on to his son, that equal access to education does not necessarily assure equality of opportunity, that equality under the law has not always been reflected in the courts. Now there are those who advocate that what we should seek is a system that assures "equality of end results" rather than merely "equality of opportunity. "Equality of end results" has un uplifting and appealing ring to it until you follow it through to its final logical conclusion. Properly we should accept on moral grounds that race, religion, or sex should not deny equal access to opportunity. But "equality of end results" implies that there shall be no distinction among the many overlapping groups that make up our society - the blonds and brunettes the lefthanded and the righthanded, the lazy and the hard working. Under a system with no discrimination clearly the deserving will get less than they deserve and the undeserving more than they deserve. If the system is to be workable, it seems to me that some differentiation is not only defendable but indeed essential. Paul McCracken put it aptly when he stated: "And the full implication of this really begins to take shape when we ask whether another group should have equal access to our universities, graduate schools, and offices along mahogany row - namely the group with below average