The Conflationof LaissezFairewithRegulation-ImposedEugenics 41Nowwe moveon to the commonavowalthateverybrandof socialDarwinism—
includingfree-marketevolutionismand governisteugenics—is a rationalizationfor social
inequality.Thatis the exacttermthatRiceUniversityanthropologistSarahBlafferHrdy
(b. 1946)enunciateswhenshe equatesfree-marketeconomicswithracism—“socialin-
equality.”^131 Everywherewe findthatPC equivocationaboutfree-marketindividualism
andracialbigotry.WithinyearsofSDAT’s publication,thatattitudebecameubiquitous.
In 1945,DavidF. Bowersof Princetondeclared,“Spencer’s biologicalapproachto social
theoryprovidedsupportfor the biologicalapproachto historyimplicitin all racistand
imperialistpropaganda.” Creepily,Bowerscautionedthata readingofSDATlaidout
Spencer’s “importantinfluenceon the eugenicsmovementof the period.”^132 “It would
seema stretch,” ThomasC. Leonardmusedin 2009,“to claimthat HerbertSpenceradvo-
catedplannedstatecontrolof humanbreeding,but thatchargeemergedimmediatelyin
the wakeof SDATand can still be foundtoday.”^133
In 2007,BinghamtonUniversityanthropologistDavidSloanWilsondenouncedSpen-
cer. Youmayrecallmy mentionin BookTwoof D. S. Wilson’s derisionof AynRand.On
the matterof the nineteenth-centuryevolutionist,Wilsonspews,“HerbertSpencer,an
intellectualgiantof Darwin’s day,likedevolutionbecausehe thoughtit justifiedthe
inequalitiesof Britishclasssociety.... Hitlerlikedevolutionbecausehe thoughtit jus-
tifiedthe ultimatesocialinequalityof genocide.Usingevolutionto justifysocialinequal-
ity has becomeknownas ‘socialDarwinism.’ “^134 Accordingto D. SloanWilson’s insinua-
tion,Spencerglamorizedinequalityby sayingthatthereis nothinginherentlyunjust
aboutMillionaireMikebeingwealthierthanThousand-aireTheo.Thisis withSpencer’s
and Sumner’s provisothatMillionaireMikeacquiredhis affluencepeacefully.Anti-capi-
talistintellectualsassumethat that conclusionis identicalto eugenicistspromoting“social
inequality” in the sensethat eugenicsregardsAryansto be congenitallysuperiorto other
racesandthereforemorallyobligedto subjugatethem.Andtakenoticethatwhileshe
startsoff withcondemningfree-marketeconomicsas socialDarwinism,SarahBlaffer
Hrdysmoothlyseguesintoan insinuationthatsocialDarwinismis the linkthatbinds
Lockeancapitalismwithracismandsexism.“SocialDarwinismexplicitlyassumesthat
competitionleadsto ‘improvement’ of a species;the mechanismof improvementis the
unequalsurvivalof individualsandtheiroffspring.Applyingthis theoryto the human
condition,socialDarwinistsholdthatthoseindividualswhowinthe competition,who
surviveand thrive,mustnecessarilybe the ‘best.’ Socialinequalitiesbetweenthe sexes,or
betweenclassesandraces,representthe operationof naturalselectionandtherefore
shouldnot be tamperedwith,sincesuchtamperingwouldimpedethe progressof the
species.”^135
ObservewhatdataHrdyand D. S. Wilsonhavemarginalized.To somedegree,Spen-
cer andSumnerformulatedthatfreeenterprisewasgoodexactlybecauseit madeit
possiblefor someoneto prosperthroughhis ownindividualmeritby his ownvolition.
Yes,as I statedin BookTwo,Spencerdislikedthe termfree willand deridedit. I wouldnot
be surprisedif Sumnerexpressedsimilarderisionof the term.Nonetheless,at leastin the
sphereof marketactivities,theyunderstoodthata person’s wealth,in the finalanalysis,
wasdeterminedprimarilyby the person’s ownchoices,andthereforethe resultof the
person’s ownlevelof judgmentandresponsibility.Theseare the termsthatSpencer
himselfemployedin explainingwhy,if Mikepeaceablyservesconsumerdemandon a
widerscale,andat greaterefficiency,thandoesTheo,thenMikedeservesto earnmore
moneythanTheo:“Justice... meanspreservationof the normalconnexionsbetweenacts
and results—the obtainmentby eachof as muchbenefitas his effortsare equivalentto—
no moreand no less.Livingand workingwithinthe restraintsimposedby one another’s
presence,justicerequiresthatindividualsshallseverallytakethe consequencesof their
conduct,neitherincreasednor decreased.” Thereis thereforegreatinjustice,andan im-