Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute

REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 51
adapt himself to natural conditions. As generations develop,
the “fit” or “the fittest” survive, and the “unfit” die. The
progeny of the “fit” are also “fit,” while the unfit get no
chance to reproduce. In this way the human race supposedly
improves. As Dr. Cutten puts it, “The strong won, the weak
lost; the strong left progeny, the weak died early and childless.
It worked out pretty well too.” 5
The theory waxes ever more lyrical about the beauty and
wisdom of this process of “natural selection.” Ah, all-wise,
all-knowing, and benevolent Nature! All Nature’s energies
work toward the improvement of the human race. Does
Nature seem to be unkind and cruel and opposed to the
Christian ethic? Nonsense! That is because Nature is truly
benevolent and far sighted; man’s attempts to be kind are
merely examples of his shortsightedness. Hands off! Let
Nature do the job, “the cleaning and selecting process.”
Let Dr. Cutten continue the panegyric:
5 Cutten, “Rugged Individualism,” p. 70.
6 Ibid.
For . . . over a million years . . . old mother nature
has been experimenting, and has come to the
undoubted conclusion that rugged individualism is
the most successful brand of biped and that the
rugged individualist is worth saving. She is very
careful of those who lift and very careless of those
who lean. When nature has decided that an individual
is a confirmed leaner, she hurries to get rid
of him forthwith lest he should contaminate the
race which she is so carefully trying to develop. 6
How did this careful and farseeing selection take place?
Dr. Cutten becomes specific:
Man’s extremity was nature’s opportunity for then
came the time of most severe competition. Glacial
periods, famine floods, and other similar calamities