The Conflationof LaissezFairewithRegulation-ImposedEugenics 39wereaidingthe eugenicambitionsof CharlesBenedictDavenport.The conservationand
eugenicsmovementsdid not wantfor friendsin highplacesin the earlytwentiethcentu-
ry.”^120 WouldBlackandhis fellowleftistsconcludethatthis provesthatenvironmental
activismis a capitalistconspiracyas well?In the bookConservationand the Gospelof
Efficiency, left-winghistorianSamuelP. Hayesadmitsthatthe wealthyearly-twentieth-
centuryprogressiveswhopioneeredin Americanenvironmentalismweregovernistswho
lobbied for government-enforced cartelizationof industry, for theyheld “revulsion
againstunrestrainedcompetition.. .”^121 As shallbe detailedin chapters5 and 9, eugeni-
cismandenvironmentalismalikegrewpopularin the USAandGermanyon accountof
the verysamehistoricalfigures,oneof whomwasMadisonGrant,supportingboth
causeson the samebasicphilosophicpremise.
Giventhe aforementionedconsiderations,I contestEdwinBlack’s insinuations(1) that
laissezfaireis the sameas plutocracyand(2) thatHerbertSpencerwassomesortof
apologistfor a plutocracy.Oneof Spencer’s mainpointsof his politicalwritingswashis
lamentationthatthe governmentof nineteenth-centuryBritainenactedregulationsin
orderto subsidizethe wealthiest classesat the expenseof the lower ones.Spencer
thundered,“Ourlegislatorstax the peopleto a mostexorbitantextent;squanderthe
moneythuswrestedfromthe toilingartisanin the supportof institutionsfor the benefit
of the rich;... and whenthe misusedsubjectdemandsof the governmentthatit defend
himin the exerciseof his rightsand privileges... whatis its conduct?... Doesit takeup
the causeof the poorman,and defendhimagainstthe aggressionsof his rich neighbour?
No!... Not onlyhas our governmentdonethosethingswhichit oughtnot to havedone,
but it has left undonethosethingswhichit oughtto havedone;and trulymayit be said
that thereis no healthin it.”^122
FinancialMeritocracyFacilitatesRacismand Sexism?
Government-practicedeugenicsviolatesLockeanismby definition.Recognizingthis,
Yale’s DanielKevlesappendshis ownunflatteringdescriptionof HerbertSpencer’s ideas
witha reminderto his readersthatsuchfree-marketadvocatesas Spencerinveighed
againstgovernmentregulationsoverhumanreproduction.Kevlesacknowledgesthat
suchthat coercioncontradictsthe “doctrineof laissez-faireby requiringstateinterference
withindividualliberty,andone of the mostprivateareasof libertyat that.”^123 Georgia
StateUniversitylaw professorPaulA. Lombardoalsofindsit behooving,followinghis
unfairdenunciationof Spencer,to acknowledgethatthe advocatesof forcedsterilization
and government-regulatedeugenicsvirulentlydetested“a laissez-fairepolicyin a society
whosecharitableinstitutionssubsidizedthe livesof the deficient.”^124 ScholarDianePaul
cannothelpbut remarkthat governisteugenicshas no logicalplacein a countrythat may
be thoughtof as “the landof HoratioAlger.”^125 RobertBannisterremarksthatthe very
allegationthatgovernist“eugenicswassimplyan extensionof... the industriallaissez
faire mosteugenicists despised,” simply“blurred the fact” that governisteugenics
amountedto an “abandonment” of Spencer’s domesticpeaceadvocacyin favorof violent
governistintrusions.^126
Indeed,legionsof writerslumpSpencerandWilliamGrahamSumnertogetherwith
the governisteugenicistmovementas socialDarwinistjust becauseeachof theseparties
invokedevolutionin theirargumentsconcerningsocialscienceandpolitics.Thosewho
lumpthesepartiestogetherplaceSpencerandSumnerin the samecategoryas menof a
completelydissimilaraffiliation.Spencerand Sumnerclashedwiththe governisteugeni-
cistson:
- Politicaleconomy(Spencer’s andSumner’s freemarketsversusthe eugenicists’
regulations).