Hunting Down Social Darwinism Will This Canard Go Extinct

NaturalLibertyRequiresAdherenceto Truth 325

Twomen,bothemployingrationalepistemology,can cometo honestdisagreementsin
theirconclusions.Theyhavedifferentlife experiencesthatleadto differentobservations,
thusresultingin differentinductions.However,insofaras PersonAexercisesan episte-
mologyfar morerationalthanPersonB, the intellectualcontentsof theirconclusionswill
differ:evenwhen,in completeseriousness,theysay the samesentences.Randproved
that individualrightsare justifiedby man’s rationalnatureon thesegrounds.

1. Manderivesvaluesaccordingto the standardof whatbenefitsor enhanceshis
   eudaemonia,the stateof survivalbeinga prerequisiteto the maintenanceof eudae-
   monia.


2. To live andservicethis eudaemonia,manneedsto appropriatesustenancefor his
   ownsurvival.


3. A person’s properappropriationandutilizationof thissustenancerequiresone
   holdthe ultimaterightfulcontroloverthe sustenance.Thisentailsthatno one else
   violentlywrestlessuchcontrolawayfromthis person.Thisis wherethe conceptof
   rightsbegins.


4. The institutionof a policedepartmentis the mosteffectivemethodof ensuringthe
   securityof everyone’s rights.

LockealsoobservedPoints 2 , 3 , and 4 to somedegree,but not so muchPoint 1. Although
RandbuiltuponLocke’s discoveriesandusedhis terminology—”rightsto life,liberty,
and estate”—Randtookthe conceptsmuchfartherand constructeda new,superiortheo-
ry, just as Dalton’s explanationaboutatomsis completein a mannerthatDemocritus
nevermatched.Particularlyrelevantto this discussionis that someone’s arbitraryprocla-
mationthat“Rightsto life, liberty,and propertycomefromGod—and that’s it,” despite
anysemanticsimilaritiesthatstatementmightholdwithRand’s writings,doesnot fall
into the samecategoryas the Objectivistunderstandingof rights.
Thisis why,althoughmy politicalrhetoricmaysharesomesuperficialsimilarities
withthoseof otherself-proclaimedfree-marketadvocates,we do not perforceagreeon
the applicationof laissez-faireprinciples.Norare we necessarilyworkingtowardthe
sameends.For thatreason,one shouldnot assumethatI am fightingfor the samesort of
societyas a libertarianwhoproclaimsthatChristianityandthe EighthCommandment
serveas the basesof his libertarianism.Oneshouldnot presumethatI agreewitha
libertarianwhoairs arbitrarysuppositionsaboutGodgivingus rightsthatjustifylaissez
faire.Finally,I am not in agreementwithsuchlibertariansas RobertNozick,whostake
theircasefor laissezfaireon arbitrarilychosendeontologicalpremisesfromwhichthey
deduce,in the traditionof Kant,theirentirepoliticalphilosophies.
We cannotdecipherwhatis morallyrightor wrongunlesswe exercisethe proper
methodology:objectiveepistemology.Deviationfromobjectiveepistemologyis irration-
alism—goingby whimsand arbitrarypronouncements.Oncepeopleabandonrationality
as theirguide,theyhaveno constraintsin developingrationalizationsfor illiberalismand
spoliation.Nothingbut inductivereasoncan refutesuchrationalizations.I hopethat part
II’s discussionof the ThirdReichmadeforthrightthe causalconnectionbetweenirration-
al epistemologyandgenerallypoliticallyilliberalresults.As Voltaireexplains,“Those
whocan makeyoubelieveabsurditiescan makeyoucommitatrocities.”^15 TheNazis’
violentilliberalismwasthe consequenceof the Nazispracticingtheirownirrationalro-
manticistepistemology.
Herewe can employanotheranalogyinvolvingteachers.Whenchildrentakemath
classin middleschool,theirtextbookusuallyincludes,in its backsection,the answersto
the mathhomeworkproblemsthat the teacherassignsfromthe book.Mostmathteachers
expecttheirstudentsto showtheirworkin solvingeachassignedmathexercise.Thisis
howthe teacherdiscernsthatthe studentsunderstandthe principlesinvolvedin the