216 Chapter 9
primatologistJaneGoodallon howthe structureof chimpanzeebandsprovidesus a
glimpseon howhumansocialinstitutionsevolved,I mustfaulther on the issueof animal
rights.She advocatesthe “rights” of chimpanzeeswhenher ownresearchdemonstrates
thatchimpanzeescannothaverights—at leastnot the Lockeanonesthis trilogyupholds.
A sapientbeingpossessesrightsinsofaras he or she refrainsfromspoliatingany other
innocent,non-spoliatingsapientbeingwithrights.Dr. Goodalldiscoveredthatit is an
overwhelminglystatisticalcommonalityfor a malechimpanzeeto obtainsex fromfe-
malesby meansof assault.^113 Werewe to applyhumanconceptsof socialinteractionto
thoseof chimpanzees,we wouldhaveto characterizemostmalechimpsas rapistsand
concedethattheirpropensityto rapeis congenital.Chimpsare alsoviolentwithone
anotherto an extentthat has not beentoleratedamonghumansin the modernindustrial-
izedworldsincethe IndustrialRevolution.
Wereit truethatchimpanzeespossessedLockeanrights,a night watchmanstate
wouldhaveto imprisonmostchimpanzeeson the groundsthattheyabrogatedthe
“rights” of otherchimpanzeesthroughspoliation.As we recallfromBookTwo,it is not
unusualfor MaleChimp1 to “murder” the babiesof MaleChimp2 so thatMaleChimp
1’s babieswill not haveto sharefoodor livingspacewithMaleChimp2’s babies.^114 The
samegoesfor orangutans.^115 It is proper,of course,for someonewhoaestheticallyvalues
animalsto campaignpeaceablyagainstwantoncrueltytowardthem.An appropriate
namefor sucha campaignisanimalwelfare, not animal“rights.”
Himmler’s notionthatmanis nothingspecialhas continuedwithmodernenviron-
mentalistsin the more-developedcountries(MDCs).In 1974the Clubof Romepro-
claimed,“The WorldHasCancerand the CancerIs Man.”^116 FormerRockefellerFounda-
tionpresidentAlanGregg,whomwe quotedin BookTwo,pronouncedin a 1955issueof
the journalScience, “that the worldhas cancer,and that the cancercell is man.. .”^117 Paul
R. Ehrlichasserts,“A canceris an uncontrolledmultiplicationof cells;the population
explosionis an uncontrolledmultiplicationof people.... We mustshiftour effortsfrom
the treatmentof the symptomsto cuttingout the cancer.”^118
WhatIs the Sourceof SimilarityBetweenthe U.S.Leftand Early-1900sGermany?
Noneof thisis to conveythatsomebodyis a Nazion accountof professingthat
animalshaverightsor thatwe humanbeingsshouldsacrificeour ownintereststo those
of an unmolestedwilderness.Whatprovedthe Nazisdeservingof condemnationwas not
thattheyheldsuchbeliefs,but thattheyinflictedviolenceon innocentpeoplein orderto
imposethesebeliefsaboutrace,eugenics,religion,and environmentalism.Further,what
JacobSullumsaidaboutpublichealthregulationsalsoapplieshere—the enactmentof
spoliativeenvironmentaland “animalactivism” regulationswouldbe just as deleterious
as theyare in the moderncontextwerethe Nazisneverto advocatethem.
Somereadersmightregardit as inappropriatethat I haveplacedso muchemphasison
the ThirdReich’s politicallycorrectregulatory-entitlement-statepolicies,as if that empha-
sis trivializesthe horrorsof the Holocaust.Suchreadersmaybelievethat the welfare-state
policiesare kindandhumanitarianandthereforecontradictthe obviousevilsof Ausch-
witzand the gas chambers.Yet, despitetheirdifferencesin severityand magnitude,each
of the regulatory-entitlementgovernistpoliciessharessomethingin commonwiththe
Nazis’ persecutionof Jews. Each of theseprogramswasenforcedthroughviolence
againstsapienthumanbeingspossessingactualrights.Recallthatthe Germangovern-
mentwouldissueviolenceagainstanyonewhoceaselesslyresistedthe compulsorytaxa-
tionthatfinancedthe Naziwelfarestate.The sameprincipleappliesto anyonetryingto
disobeythe ThirdReich’s economicregulations.I am mindfulthat the Nazis’ taxationand
regulationmeasureswereminorin comparisonto the puresavageryof the Holocaust.But