286 Chapter 11
the guaranteesof peacefor the laborerand securityfor the capitalistare the highest.” You
mayrememberthosewordsfromBookOne.
OnereasonwhySumnerdismissednaturalrightsis thathe wasdissatisfiedwiththe
originaldefinitionprovidedby JohnLockeand Locke’s Enlightenment-Erafellowtravel-
ers. AndSumnerwasconvincedthatthe new“definition” ofrightsbeingintroducedby
anti-capitalistsin the late 1800swasbecomingthe “correct” definition.It wasaroundthis
timethatU.S.progressiveshadalreadybegunto stealthe wordrights(justas theywere
stealingliberal) and misusingit in the samemannerthatPresidentFranklinD. Roosevelt
andhis NewDealerswouldjust a fewdecadeslater.Sumnernaïvelysurrenderedthe
wordrightsto thesepeople.Thus,whenSumnerdisputedthe existenceof naturalrights,
he did not meanthatLockeansweremisguidedto disapproveof governmentinfringe-
mentson privateownership.Suchspoliationis preciselywhatSumnerdeploredas a
grossabuseof civilliberty.InsteadSumnerardentlyprotestedwhatwould,by the late
twentiethcentury,be dubbeda “rightto housing” or a “rightto socializedhealthcare.”
Likeany laissez-faireist,Sumnerrejectedthe NewDealers’ platitudethata poorman’s
“rightto privateproperty” meantthatif thatpoormandid not havea lot of money,it
followedthatthe governmentwasobligatedto confiscatemoneyfromwealthierpeople
and thengiveit to him.
Shouldone keepthis in mindwhilereadingthe followingSumner-authoreddenuncia-
tion of naturalrights,one can judgethat his positionfavorsLockeanprivatizationagainst
the formsof spoliationthatFDRextolson behalfof the needy.“If it is true,then,thata
manis bornwithrights,he comesintothe worldwithclaimson somebodybesideshis
parents.Againstwhomdoeshe holdsuchrights?... if menhaverightsby birth,these
rightsmustholdagainsttheirfellow-menand mustmeanthatsomebodyelse is to spend
his energyto sustainthe existenceof the personsso born.Whatthenbecomesof the
naturalrightsof the one whoseenergiesare to be divertedfromhis owninterests?”^100
HadSumnerfoughtagainstthe socialists’ contortionof the termrights—to remindevery-
one that naturalrights,as originallydefinedby Lockeand the free-marketEnlightenment
philosophes, wassynonymouswithwhathe calledcivilliberty—he wouldnot havefos-
teredthe misconceptionthathe opposedthe samenightwatchmanstatethatLockede-
fended.
Sumneris, dispiritingly,guiltyof somethingfar moreegregiousthanfaultysemantics.
Andas we shalllearnshortly,Sumner’s confusionoverindividualrightsis actuallythe
directresultof this gravermisjudgment.Tragically,Sumnercreatesa self-contradictionin
his writingson politicalphilosophyas a resultof his tacitacceptanceof the casesmadeby
Plato,DavidHume,and ImmanuelKant.I am referringto the claimof thesephilosophers
thatthe realmof ethics(whichSumnerwritesoff as pedantic“ideology”) is completely
unrelatedto the realmof facts.Sumnerdoesso becausehe assimilatesthe assumptionsof
Kantand Humethat moralitycannotbe objectiveunlessmoralprinciplesare context-less
and categorical.The Yalesociologistand ex-clergymancorrectlyascertainsthat no princi-
ple can be validif it comeswithno context.Yet he erroneouslydeniesthe existenceof any
objectivemoralprinciplesas such.Sumnerfailedto appreciateor acknowledgethe ethical
interpretationthatAynRandwouldprovidein the decadestrailingSumner’s death:that
objectivemoralabsolutesdo exist,but that,for a principleto be absolute,its absoluteness
existsexclusivelywithinits ownpropercontext.
Whenhe expoundsuponpolitics,Sumnerdressesup his evaluationsas merestate-
mentsof fact,free of the arbitrarysubjectivismthathe mistakenlyassumesgoeshand-in-
handwithideologyand ethics.All the whilehe irrationallyclassifiesethicsand ideology
as topicsthatare beneaththe dignityof his paradigm.Eludingthatthe samecivilliberty
and Ruleof Peacethathe treasuresare themselvesideals,^101 Sumnerridiculouslyasserts
that “ideals,”quaabsoluteprinciples,havedone“greatharm.”^102