The Ethologists’ UnpaidDebtsto Spencerand Sumner 293ing it, withoutknowingit, advancethe interestsof the society,andaffordmeansto the
multiplicationof the species.”^128
Unfortunatelyto his detriment,SpencerparrotedSmith’s ostensiveassumptionthat
the entrepreneur’s self-interestedprofit-seekingwasno morethana meansto the greater
end of collectivesocietalenrichment.Doubly,SpencerwentalongwithSmithin takingit
for grantedthatthe end of benefittingotherswasthe solejustificationfor profitingone-
self.As Randhas shown,this assumptionis hogwash.It cannotbe justlydeniedthatan
entrepreneur’s peacefulprofit-motivationis of benefitto personsotherthanthatentre-
preneur.But suchpeacefulself-interestdoesnot haveto be justifiedas a meansto some
otherend.Thefact is thata persondoesnot needto benefitanybodyelsefor his own
peacefulpursuitof his ownself-interestto be scrupulous.To my disappointment,this
truthhas beenmissednot by Spencerand Sumneralonebut also by evolutionarypsychol-
ogists—the sameevolutionarypsychologistswhoare unacknowledgedsuccessorsto
Spencerand Sumner.By this pointI shouldhavefullywipedout the misconceptionthat
Spencer’s laissez-fairepoliticsin anymannerinspiredgovernisteugenics.Thereis but
one respectwhereinSpencerclearedthe pathfor the furtheronsetof governism.In failing
to contestthe validityof altruistethics—and,besides,contortingthe word’s definitionin
effortto promoteits usage—Spencercededthe groundswherebyhe couldhaveotherwise
refutedgovernism’s maincontention.Thatwouldbe the contentionthatthe Statecould
rightlyprioritizethe socialcollectiveabovethe individual.Insofaras one concedesthat
altruist-collectivistpremise,one has littlereasonto objectto forciblesacrificesof individu-
als on the socialcollective’s behalf.
It is unfortunatethatmostsuccessfulbusinesspeoplemouththe sort of platitudesthat
are alignedwithSpencer’s. AlthoughBookTwolaudsformerXeroxCEOJosephWilson
for valiantlyassistingChesterF. Carlson withprotectinghis patentson xerographic
photocopying,I takeissuewithWilson’s homiliesaboutaltruism.“The happiestdevelop-
ment,” Wilsonproclaimed,“... aboutthe relationshipbetweenbusinessandsociety,is
thatgainis no longerthoughtto be the solemotivatingforceof businessmen.” Then,
conflatingthe Scottishphilosopher’s utilitarianargumentwitha defenseof self-interest,
Wilsonpropounds,“The kindof escapefromresponsibilityprescribedby AdamSmithis
nowconsideredby manybusinessmenas unrealistic,a conceptof the utmoststerility.”^129
Despitehow,in BookTwo,I providedquotationsof Ludwigvon Misesvoicingpartial
agreementwiththe Objectivistethics,Misesunfortunatelyprovesinconsistentin this
area.He ultimatelyfallsbackon the sameAdamSmithianutilitarianismas Spencer.As
withSpencer,Misescorrectlyobservesthat life is a positive-sumgameand thenincorrect-
ly concludesthat thereis no ultimateconflictbetweenegoismand altruism.“The ideaof a
dualismof motivationassumedby mostethicaltheorists,whentheydistinguishbetween
egoisticandaltruisticmotivesof action,cannotthereforebe maintained.Thisattemptto
contrastegoisticandaltruisticactionspringsfroma misconceptionof the socialinterde-
pendenceof individuals.Thepowerto choosewhethermy actionsandconductshall
servemyselfor my fellowbeingsis not givento me—whichperhapsmaybe regardedas
fortunate.... Thusthe famousscientificdisputeas to the possibilityof derivingthe
altruisticfromthe egoisticmotivesof actionmaybe regardedas definitelydisposedof.”
Additionallyakinto Spencer,Misespresumesthat thereis somethinginherentlywrong—
somethinginherentlypsychologicallydisturbedor ethicallytroubling—in someonewho
wishesto be a hermitor recluse.^130
Moreheartbreakingstill,Spencerwouldhavelookedaskanceat the verythemeof the
trilogyyoupresentlyread.My trilogy’s pointis thatpoliticalchangeis directedby the
culture’s dominatingphilosophy.A culturedominatedby an Aristotelianapproachand
Objectivisttenets—reason,eudaemonicself-interest,the Ruleof Peace,and the individu-
alismthat unitesthem—makefor a culturalmilieuthat yieldsprosperityand progress.By