Progressivism 109members.”^55 Actinguponhis advice,the lordservedas the vicepresidentof the Eugenics
Societyof London,and sat on its boardof directorsfrom 1926 to 1944.^56
Keynes’s EugenicsSocietyof Londonhad severalequivalentsin the USA.Oneof those
wasthe AmericanEugenicsSociety,of whicha fellowMalthusadmirer,Dr. Garrett
Hardin,servedas vicepresident.^57 Hardinalsosat on the advisoryboardof the Reposito-
ry for GerminalChoice.Thisrepositorywasa specialtypeof spermbankthatinitially
acceptedgeneticdepositsfromno one exceptNobellaureatesand Olympian.Moreover,it
initiallyprovidedaccessto this spermto no one exceptwomenof highIQs.Thatwasdue
to the founder’s assumptionthatgeneticsdeterminedIQ, andthatIQ likewisedeter-
minedmoralcharacter.^58 I do not havemuchtrepidationaboutthis spermbank’s exis-
tence,as everyinteractionwithit wasstrictlyconsensual.Sadly,Dr. Hardineventually
reacheda pointat whichhe imploredthatpersonswithlow IQ scoresoughtto be steril-
ized.Thatway,low IQ scoreswouldnot bedeviltomorrow’s generations.“Thereseemsto
be,” Hardinstated,“littledangerof society’s beingdeprivedof somethingvaluableby the
sterilizationof all feeble-mindedindividuals.... Sooneror later... humanpopulation
willreacha limit.... Sooneror later,not all the childrenthathumansare willingto
procreatecan survive.Eithertheremustbe a relativelypainlessweedingout beforebirth
or a morepainfulweedingout afterbirth.... If we neglectto choosea programof
eugenics,willthe productionof childrenbe nonselective?... PeoplewithlowI.Q. are
reproducingat a fasterrate thanthosewithhighI.Q.”^59
Hardintriedto convinceothermenof highIQ thatthe majorityof humanbeingsare
worthless.As he assumedthatvirtuewasgeneticallyinborn,he implored,“Lookaround
you.Howmanyheroesdo younumberamongyourneighbors?Or yourcolleagues?...
Whereare the heroesof yesteryear?Whereis Spartanow?”^60 Thuswe confrontthe
perverseinjusticein howHerbertSpencerand GarrettHardinhavebeentreatedin non-
fictionliterature.Spenceris smearedas a eugenicistwhopromulgatedthatthe destitute
deservedeuthanasiaand nothingelse.In realityhe explicitlyrecommendedprivatechar-
ity and,by logicalimplication,opposedthe governisteugenicists’ effortto passlawsto
controlpopulation.
Conversely,Hardinactuallydid propagatethe governisteugenicistargumentthatthe
humanracewouldprofitif low-incomeindividualsdiedbeforebreeding.He saidso quite
loudly.Likewise,Hardinwouldhaveit thatthe U.S.governmentproscribepeoplefrom
voluntarilyhelpingthe poor.He publiclysupportedothereugenicistcausesas well.The
Malthusianismof bothKeynesandHardinwerein lock-step.Thelattermanreceives
accolades,sometimesfromsomefree-marketlibertarians,justbecausehe coinedthat
phrasetheyloveso much:“the tragedyof the commons.” Spencerdid not say thatpoor
peoplebeara dutyto die beforereproducing,yet he getsflackfor sayingit. By contrast,
left-wingenvironmentalistHardin,whodid say that the poorhavea dutyto die, doesnot
get flackfor sayingit.
I commendPrincetonUniversityhistorianEricGoldman(1915–1989)on one count.In
1956,he wasamongthe firstgovernistintellectualsto call attentionto the gulfbetween
the free-marketevolutionists(SpencerandSumner)andthe stateeugenicists.Goldman
noticedthat,of course,bothgroupsinvokedevolutionarytheoryto advancetheirown
public-policy prescriptions. More importantly, though, Goldman noticed that both
groupsadvocatedcompletelyoppositepoliticalphilosophies.Sadly,Goldmanhas not
beenveryhelpfulwhenit comesto choosinglabelsfor the two groups.He simply
drubbedthe ideologyof Spencerand SumnerasconservativeDarwinism. He distinguished
the stateeugenicistsfromthemby affixingthe newlabelofreformDarwinismto the state
eugenicists.To Goldman,relativefree enterprisewasAmerica’s defaultposition.Hence,
GoldmaninaccuratelydeemedSpencerand Sumnerto supporta free-marketstatusquo,
ignoringthatpurefreeenterprisehadneverexistedin the USA’s history.Continuing