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

REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 53
and truly kind, etc. All this may be permissible in theology,
where apparently anything goes, but not in political philosophy
where we are supposedly dealing with the world of facts
and not a world of dreams. Nature is simply the environment
on earth in which man finds himself, and to treat it as
a separate being in the image of man is sheer nonsense.
Second, the Rugged Individualist not only blandly asserts
the existence of such a being, but also claims that he has an
exclusive pipeline on her wishes, desires, etc. Who is he to
speak for Nature? I could with equal validity propound the
doctrine that “Nature” is an evil old hag who is trying her
best to eliminate the human race—all of it. Not only would
such a proposition be equally valid with that of the Rugged
Individualist, it would probably be more consonant with the
facts. And from this proposition an entirely different set of
policies would follow.
Third, the teleological fallacy. This is the doctrine that
all of the history of man has some sort of deep purpose and
goal ordained divinely or by “Nature.” This conceives of history
with absurd optimism as marching steadily or in zigzag
fashion (the Marxists, for example, believe in the zigzag
path) toward some “good” goal, which usually by some
strange coincidence turns out to be the very goal that the
one who propounds the theory desires! Thus, the Marxist
sees history as a grand march toward the socialist society of
his dreams, and the Rugged Individualist sees history as a
grand march of weeding out the “unfit” and improving the
race. In both cases there is a grand design and in both cases
the design is one that suits the man who propounds it.
Again, this teleology will pass in the confines of the church
but not in a discussion of political or social philosophy. In
these latter realms it is simply mystic nonsense, with no
basis in fact or human experience whatsoever.
2. The Fallacy of the “Survival of the Fittest”
The entire concept of the “fit” surviving is a complete fallacy.
Let us suppose that several thousand hard-working,