Did Nineteenth-CenturyCapitalistsWantthe Poorto Die? 11did not makethe Americannegroa civilizedman,thougheveryoneknowsthatthe
franchiseis an importantpartof everycivilizedman’s heritage.” Actingin accordance
withthe left-winger’s imageof an anti-welfare,eugenicistsocialDarwinian,Mencken
citesbothwelfareand blacksuffrageas casestudiesin the obstructionof “the operationof
the lawof naturalselectionin the lowerorders.” To Mencken,the bestthatcouldbe
statedaboutearly-twentieth-centuryAmerica’s mostly-commercialsystemwas that,inso-
far as it is maintained,“the law of naturalselection” couldbe saidto be “aidingthe man-
madelawsof artificialselection.” But undersocialism,Menckensniffed,“the unfitwould
survive.”^39 Thatis, the unfitwouldsurviveuntiloverpopulationled to resourcedepletion
anda war-of-all-against-allamongmenof everyclass.^40 Mencken’s fallaciouslineof
argumentationis disappointing,particularlygiventhathe hadpubliclypraisedboth
Spencerand Sumneron numerousoccasions.^41
Morerecently,a similarargumentwas expressedby JamesFallon(b. 1947),a neurosci-
entistat the Universityof Californiaat Irvine.The nationalnewsmediacoveredFallonin
2010 whenhe tookan fMRIof his ownbrainand discoveredtraitsin his ownbrainstarkly
similarto the traitsof brainsof convictsprofessionallydiagnosedas psychopaths.Fallon
claimsthatwhathis brainhas in commonwiththoseof diagnosedpsychopathsis that
thereare low levelsof activityin his ventromedialprefrontalcortex,to whichbloodmust
flowfor affectiveempathyto be felt. Fallonargues,though,that his havingbeenraisedin
a lovingand caringhousehold,as opposedto an abusiveand devaluingone,has prevent-
ed himfromgrowingup to be the violentfelonhe otherwisewouldhavebecome.Still,
Falloncontinues,the traithe shareswiththe moredangerous,morecriminalistic,and
spoliativepsychopathsis thathe is bereftof the capacityfor genuineaffectiveempathy
for others.ThatFallonproudlyproclaimshimselfbotha libertarianand a non-empathetic
borderline-psychopathposesa dilemmafor the reputationof free-marketadvocates.It is
easyfor someoneto observeFallon’s exampleandcite it as furtherevidencethatto
supportfree-marketeconomics,one mustbe a psychopathdevoidof affectiveempathy.
Fallonworsensthe dilemmaby openinghis mouthto declare,“As a Libertarian.... I
don’t thinkwe shouldspendeverydimewe haveto saveone child.... If one person
croakstomorrowfor the sakeof society,it’s too bad,but I don’t care.... If the system
weedsout weakor lazyindividuals,fine.”^42
But the remarksof MenckenandFallondo not eradicatethe factthatthe lineof
argumentationput forthby MenckenandFalloncannotbe foundin the worksof either
Spenceror Sumner.To imputeMencken’s sentimentsintothoseof eitherSpenceror
Sumneris thereforeto faultsomeonefor sentimentshe has not conveyed.
It chagrinsme that contemporarycriticsinsiston besmirchingAynRand,Spencer,and
Sumner,equatingthemwithsomebodywhowishesto sacrificeotherpeoplefor one’s
ownostensivebenefit.TheRand-hatersappearto be confusingRandwiththe French
philosopher-pornographer Donatien-Alphonse-François de Sade(1740–1814),whoin-
deedadvocatedthatone shouldspoliateothersfor one’s ownsupposedprofit.To quote
the Marquisde Sade,“Get intoyourhead... thatwhatfoolscallhumanenessis nothing
but a weaknessbornof fearandegoism.. .”^43 (emphasisSade’s). WhenSadeaccuses
humanitariansofegoism, he meansthattheyare too arrogantto admitto themselvesthat
his cynicalworldview,whichcondonesspoliation,is the correctone.Sadecannothelp
but join the altruistphilosophersin presumingthategoismmustbe a pejorative,a judg-
mentof opprobrium.
In his eroticfictionJuliette, Sadeproclaimsthroughone of his charactersthatMother
Nature“has givenus... weakindividualsto be our slaves:theyare her gift to us, a
sacrifice... the strongmanmayhenceuse the weakas he seesfit; mayhe not aid themin
someinstances?No; for if he does;he acts contraryto Nature’s will.” Insofaras a strong
manderivespleasurefromexploitinga weakerperson,“he behavesas Nature’s friend” in