10 Chapter 1
altruismgaugesa man’s virtueby the degreeto whichhe surrenders,renouncesor
betrayshis values(sincehelpto a strangeror an enemyis regardedas morevirtuous,less
“selfish,” thanhelpto thoseone loves)....
Concernfor the welfareof thoseone lovesis a rationalpartof one’s ownselfishinterests.
If a manwhois passionatelyin lovewithhis wifespendsa fortuneto cureher of a
dangerousillness,it wouldbe absurdto claimthathe doesit as a “sacrifice” forhersake,
not his own,and that it makesno differencetohim, personallyand selfishly,whethershe
livesor dies....
But supposehe let her die in orderto spendhis moneyon savingthe livesof ten other
women,noneof whommeantanythingto him—as the ethicsof altruismwouldrequire.
Thatwouldbe a sacrifice.[EmphasesRand’s.]In contrastto mainstreamsociety’s fetishismoverself-renunciation,Randtaught,“your
highestmoralpurposeis the achievementof yourownhappiness,yourmoneyis yours,
use it to saveyourwife,thatis yourmoralright.. .”^34 (emphasishers).
Randstatedsomethingwisethatis in implicitrebuttalto JohnKennethGalbraith’s
asseverationthatthe rightto one’s ownlife andfortuneare merely“the unspokenex-
cuse... for passingthe beggarwiththe outstretchedhand.”^35 In this statement,Rand
spotsGalbraith’s andBrooks’s question-begging(punintended)aboutthe inherentevil-
nessof beinguncharitable.Youmayrecountthis admonitionof hersfromBookTwo:“Do
not hidebehindsuchsuperficialitiesas whetheryou shouldor shouldnot givea dimeto a
beggar.Thatis not the issue.The issueis whetheryoudoor donothavethe rightto exist
withoutgivinghimthatdime.The issueis whetheryou mustkeepbuyingyourlife, dime
by dime,fromany beggarwhomightchooseto approachyou.The issueis whetherthe
needsof othersis the firstmortgageon yourlife.. .”^36 (emphaseshers).JournalistRobert
W. Tracinskiparaphrasedit moresuccinctly:“The issueis not whetheryou givea dimeto
a beggar.The issueis whetheryou havea rightto existif you don’t.”^37 If socialDarwin-
ismhas the samemeaningas brutality,thenconsiderwhichoptionis moresocially
Darwinian.
- Milesabstainsfromcontributinghis inheritanceto the economicallymisfortunate.
- The governmentthreatensviolenceagainstMilesif he doesnot shellout a specific
percentageof his incometo the destitute.
Clergyman-turned-Yale-sociologistWilliamGrahamSumnerhas the sameanswerthatI
do. For the Stateto spoliateMilesis far crueler.
Thereare veryfewdocumentedcasesof a prominentopponentof the welfarestate
seriouslysuggestingthat the indigentoughtto die. Onesuchcaseis a seriesof lettersthat
Baltimore,MarylandjournalistH. L. Menckenwrotein debatewitha socialist.Mencken
quiteunwiselyassumedthatsomehowsocialismwouldbe betterthancapitalismat pro-
ducingwealthandabundanceandloweringthe mortalityrate.Proceedingfromthe bi-
zarreMalthusianstreakwe witnessedfromBookTwo,Menckenthoughtthat a reduction
in the deathratewouldbe calamitous,as this wouldexacerbateoverpopulation.Hence
Menckenreallydid arguethatcapitalismshouldbe chosenoversocialismon the basis
thatthe formerdid morethanthe latterto weedout the weakermembersof the species.
The Baltimorejournalistthinksit foolishthat“the concertedeffortsto put an end” to the
Darwinian“strugglefor existencewill,for a timeat least,reducethe death-rateamong
whatare nowthe lowestorderstowardthatof whatis nowthe highest,andthatthis
reductionwillquicklyswellthe populationof the world.” Sucha denialof “the law of
naturalselection” shallprecipitatethe fiercestof repercussions.^38 He recognizesno bene-
fit in welfare,as “the state’s effortsto keepEngland’s loafersandincompetentsfrom
starvingto deathhas certainlynot transformedthemintoefficientmen.. .” ThenMenck-
en exhibitsracistsentimentby bewailingblacksuffrage—“The possessionof the franchise