The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 291pleasures.”^123 As this contentionmakesverylittlesense,it is not surprisingthat Spencer’s
descriptionof howsucha societywouldrun itselfis incrediblyjumbledand perplexing.
He cannotdeliverspecific,concreteexamplesof howthis perfectsocietyis supposedto
function.Thisfailurestemsfromthe fact thatthatsystemcannotwork.Spencer’s argu-
mentis terrible,and it underminesthe verycasehe renderedfor laissez-fairefreedom.It
is for the reasonthat,as LeonardPeikoffphrasesit, Spencer’s visionmakesconcessionsto
governistpremisesalongthe linesof “menare helplessin the faceof theirownmotiva-
tion” and“laissez-faireappealsto the evilin men,but menare stuckwithit” for the
presentand for the nextfew centuries,untilwe evolve(sic)beyondthat.^124
Spencerpreparedsuchan outlandishwordsaladin orderto disavowthe contention
widespreadamonggoverniststhatthereexistsa “permanentantagonismbetween” the
“claimsof self and the claimsof others.”^125 Rememberthat Spencer’s governistopponents
wantedto underminethe entrepreneur’s “claimsof self” and redirectthe entrepreneur’s
wealthto “the claimsof others.” HadSpencersimplywantedto call attentionto the fact
that one manpeaceablypromotinghis owninterestdoesnot physicallyharmanyoneelse,
but in fact benefitsothers,thenhe wouldhavebeenfar betteroff explaining,as Randdid,
thatthe marketby its verynaturedoesnot entailthatone man’s gainmustcomeat the
forciblematerialexpenseof another.It wouldbe clearerto say that,ratherthanone man’s
gainbeinganotherman’s loss,the materialgainthatan entrepreneurrealizesthrough
peacefulmethodsspoliatesno one.AndthenSpencercouldadd,as AdamSmithdid,that
the entrepreneur’s self-interestedactionsin fact benefitpartiesotherthanthe entrepren-
eur.Sucha worldwhereone man’s gainbegetsthe gainof everyoneelse,cannotbe won
througha (d)evolutiontowardsocialcollectivism,but throughunshacklingthe market’s
peacefulproperties.Oncede-controlled,the marketecosystemcan showerfinancialre-
wardsuponentrepreneurswhopeaceablysell life-enhancinggoodsand servicesto those
willingand ableto pay for them.
Scoresof nineteenth-centurycollectivistsbelievedthattheirsocialismhadtakenthe
implicitpremisesof Spencer’s philosophyto theirlogicalconclusion.Thisideabecomes
less startlingwhenone learnsthat SpenceragreedwithAndrewCarnegie,ArthurBrooks,
and practicallyeveryothercollectivist,socialist,and governistthat a rich mandeservesto
live no morethanto the extentto whichhe providesutilityfor personsotherthanhimself.
Spencer’s socialistfansnoddedalongas he statedthatan anarchist,collectivistsociety
wasthe ethicalideal,whereastheyclashedwithSpencerwhenit cameto decidingwhat
wasthe mosteffectivemeansof attainingthatgoal.Whenthe earlytwentieth-century’s
governistsvoicedtheirresentmenttowardSpencer’s oppositionto spoliativewelfare
laws,Spencerlackedthe courageto pointout thatthe governists’ moralpremiseswere
unfounded.He wasnot braveenoughto arguethatthe poorman’s needfor material
sustenancecan neverjustifycoercivelydeprivinga richmanof the mostbasicsurvival
need(the absenceof spoliation).
Spencerproposedthat the perfectcollectivistworldordercannotreachfruitionunless
contemporarysocietybansspoliationand lets self-interestedentrepreneursgo abouttheir
business.Oncespoliationis eliminated,Spencerexplained,humansocietywillevolve
overthe courseof severalthousandyearsuntila quasi-collectivistworkers’ paradise
comesintobeing.Spencer’s socialistadmirersheldmuchmoreinternallyconsistentphi-
losophies.Theyreasonedthatif socialcollectivismis the moralideal,whereasindividual
rightsandentrepreneurialautonomyare morallylesserconcepts,thenit is moralto
violatethe entrepreneur’s individualrightsto bringaboutthe perfectcollectivistsociety.
Anda violentrevolutionwouldbringabouta perfectsocietywithinthe immediatefu-
ture;socialistsneednot adhereto Spencer’s recommendationthat theywaitmillenniafor
this bravenewworldto comeabout.Spencertriedto winhis socialistdetractorsoverto
his sideby counteringthatthoughhe couldneverapproveof welfarelaws,the poor