Conclusionof Trilogy 335will,contracts,&c. shouldnot lay individualsundersomeconstraintas to the disposition
of theirgoods,and shouldnot consequentlyrestrictthe rightof property.”^15 The conces-
sionthatpropertyrightsare “sacred,” then,is insincerityon Rousseau’s part.Wereit
ethicalfor the Stateto assailprivatepropertyrightson behalfof the collectivistcredo,
suchrightswouldlosetheirmeaning.Thusthe ironyof Rousseau’s appealthatthrough
somefree contractualagreement,a mancan assentto havingthe Statedenyhis freedoms
for the rest of his life. The ironydoesnot go unnoticedby SetonHallUniversitycommu-
nicationsprofessorAgnesHooperGottliebandher coauthors.TheychideRousseaufor
having“calledfor the subjugationof the individualto the willof the state.Thatsounds
likefascismto us.”^16 We haveindeedlearnedof howfascismandNaziismwerenot
manifestationsof laissez-faireSocialDarwinism,but wereinsteadRomanticistphiloso-
phy and governismcombinedand thentakento theirinevitableconclusion.
“Rousseau’s doctrines,” Kealeyadmits,“are immoral.”
Odeto Liberty
Auditingthe informationwe haveabsorbed,I am saddenedthat Rousseau’s agendaof
institutingthis newSocialContracthas beenat leastpartiallyachievedin modernAmeri-
ca andEurope.It has beenachievedin thatthe regulatory-entitlementstate—complete
withenvironmentalregulations—remainspowerfulandentrenchedin Westernsociety.
ThefartherthatRousseau’s philosophyprogressesin establishingtotalpoliticalcollecti-
vismin the West,the worseour liveswillbecome.We mustreversethe coursethat
Rousseauhas set us upon,for it is definitelythe wrongpath.On everycount,philosophic
criticismsagainstthe free marketare unfounded.Laissezfairedoesnot plantthe seedsof
its owndemise.Industrywillcontinueto be a boonfor us to the extentthatwe keepit
free.In lieuof fallingfor Rousseau’s homilies,we can heedthe adviceof a muchwiser
contemporaryof his—thatAmericanfirebrandwhoseverywordsopenedthistrilogy,
PatrickHenry.Henryrecognizedthe truthveryearlyon—“If a manis in chains,he
droopsandbowsto the earth,for his spiritsare broken.... but let himtwistthe fetters
fromhis legs,andhe willstanderect.... Fetternot commerce,let her be as freeas the
air.”^17
As we reachthe dock at the endof our intellectualodyssey,we recognizethat,
contraryto the dismissalsof DavidHumeand utilitariancollectivisteconomists,invoca-
tionsof individualrightsto one’s ownlife and privatepropertyare not capricious.Your
individualrightsto yourownlife,yourbody,yourmind,andotherformsof private
propertyare rootedin the principlesof natureand sociobiologicalevolution.Suchrights
inducethe needfor the sortof nightwatchmanstateI havedescribed—one focusedon
recognizingpersonalself-ownership.Thisnightwatchmanstateis to protectits Pure
Citizens’ rightsagainstphysicalassault,poisoning,propertydamage,vandalism,theft,
extortion,contractualbreach,fraud,defamation,patentinfringement,andeveryother
formof spoliation.Andthe nightwatchmanstatemustalsotolerateany childlessadult’s
rightto abnegatePureCitizenshipfor himself.Thereis no ethicalexcusefor compulsory
taxation.
Thereare no real rightsotherthanconsensualist,free-enterpriserights.The alternative
“rights” thatPresidentFranklinD. Roosevelt’s ilk havetouted,suchas a “right” to force
othersto providefor one’s healthcare,are foundhopelesslywanting.Laissez-faireliberal
rightsare whatare rationaland palpable.Theyare indispensablefor the continuedsurvi-
val of our civilization,whetheror not Malthusianenvironmentalistsandanti-globaliza-
tion activistspersistin denyingtheseconsiderations.Freedomand peacefulentrepreneur-
shipare whatbestnurturethe soilsof the marketplaceecosystem,providingit the nutri-
entswithwhichit can flourish.The soonerthat our policymakerscometo gripswiththis,