The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 285higherlevelsemerge.Quantummechanicsare the rulesfor atoms,Newton’s lawsare the
rulesfor objects,andone couldn’t completelypredictthe other.” Likewise,thatneurons
and neurotransmitters,studiedin isolation,maybehavein a mannerpredictableto neuro-
scientistsdoesnot somehowprovethatthereis no spontaneitywhenit comesto the
humanbrainactingas a whole.“I think,” Gazzanigaconcludes,“thatconsciousthought
is an emergentproperty.”^96 Thinkof the variouspartsof a humanbrainas beinganalo-
gousto the connectedcomponentsof a computer—onlymoreadvancedthanthe comput-
er. Just as the linkagesof manyotherwisesimple-binaryswitchescan produceresultsthat
are increasinglycomplexand decreasinglypredictable,the sameprincipleappliesto how
the linkagesof otherwise-simplebraincellscan eventuallyproducean unprecedented,
emergentproperty.Thatemergentpropertyis the facultyof volition,whichallowsfor
sapientbeingsto deviseand enactplansthat wereneverdevisedor enactedbefore.
It is thereforeironicthat,as willbe recalledfromBookTwo,Spencerdisbelievedin
free will.AlthoughSpencerrefusedto acknowledgefree will,it is the studyof emergent
complexity—a sciencethatSpencerhimselfpioneeredin—thatultimatelyprovidesus
insighton howfree will and naturalchangecan coexistwitha universegovernedby such
principlesas the Lawof Identity.GiventhatI havedefendedSpenceragainstthe invalid
criticismsthat anti-capitalistshaveleveledagainsthim,it is in the interestof fairnessthat
I shallsurveywhatI ascertainto be Spencer’s actualfaults.Spencer’s dismissalof free will
is but one of the variouserrorsof Spencer’s I mustaddress.
WhenSumnerIs ChallengedBy Facts
As we havereckoned,HerbertSpencerand WilliamGrahamSumnerare seldomcriti-
cizedon accountof the shortcomingsfor whichtheyactuallydeservecriticism.Nowis an
opportunemomentto expounduponthe actualerrorsin theirwritings.Thisis in addition
to the shortcomingsof Spencer’s I havealreadydiscussedin this trilogy’s twoprevious
installments:
- His concessionsto Kantianepistemology(BookOne).
- His altruism-basedethics(BookTwo).
- His denialof free will (BookTwo).
- His proclamationthatachievementhappenson the collective,not individual,level
(BookTwo).
First,verypoorwordchoiceson the partof clergymanturnedYaleUniversitysociologist
WilliamGrahamSumnergivethe appearancethat he completelydisagreeswithme about
the veracityof the Ruleof Peace.For this reason,ObjectivistphilosopherLeonardPeikoff
writesthatSumner“deniednaturalrights.”^97 Onecouldeasilygainthe sameimpression
as Peikoffuponreadingan essayby Sumnertitled“The Challengeof Facts.” In it the Yale
sociologistdecriesthe “doctrinethatmencomeintothe worldendowedwith‘natural
rights,’ or as jointinheritorsof the ‘rightsof man,’ whichhavebeen‘declared’ times
withoutnumberduringthe last century”^98 by ThomasJefferson,Jean-BaptisteSay,and
otherEnlightenmentfree-marketers.
ActuallySumnerdid largelyembracethe Ruleof Peace.Still,in lieuof describing
spoliationas a violationof rights—as Peikoff,Spencer,andI do—Sumnerinsteadde-
ploredvariousformsof spoliationas “violationsof civilliberty.”^99 Thatis, he employed
the phrasecivillibertyin the samemannerthatPeikoff,Spencer,andmostotherlaissez-
faireistsuserights. Thatcan be gleanedfromthis passageof Sumner’s. “Whatwe meanby
libertyis civilliberty,or libertyunderlaw;andthis meansthe guaranteesof law thata
manshallnot be interferedwithwhileusinghis ownpowersfor his ownwelfare.It is,
therefore,a civilandpoliticalstatus;andthatnationhas the freestinstitutionsin which