1. LETTER ON “RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM” BY GEORGE B. CUTTEN

November 16, 1948

Dr. F.A. Harper

Foundation for Economic Education

Dear Dr. Harper:

I apologize for the delay in commenting on Dr. Cutten’s speech expounding rugged individualism.¹ As a matter of fact, I was just going to write you a letter on election night, and tuned in the radio expecting to hear the returns confirming the expected results in a “dull” election. I need not explain how my attention was diverted.

Since then, I have been recuperating from and analyzing the results. My forecast on the political history of the USA in the next few years is briefly this: Truman and Congress will believe that they now have a mandate for running headlong down a steep shortcut on the old Road to Serfdom.² They will show no hesitation in acting accordingly. The Republicans will promptly “reorganize,” “meaning simply that the recent (and forthcoming) accretions of State power are here to stay... and that... they are preparing to dispose themselves most advantageously in a contest for their control and management.”³

In 1952, we shall be treated to a “contest” between a Douglas-Bowles or Humphrey-Bowles ticket versus a Stassen-Saltonstall ticket, if indeed Stassen is not considered by that time as an “ultrareactionary.”⁴ The New Dealish voters will all vote for Douglas-Bowles while the substantial minority of true liberal voters will “go fishing” in disgust. The consequence will be a thumping Democratic landslide and four more years of even more socialism.

In 1956... well who knows whether elections themselves may not be “outmoded” by that time?

As for Dr. Cutten’s speech, I found it very interesting, particularly since it is the first document I’ve received from the foundation with which I find myself in almost complete disagreement.

The philosophy of rugged individualism has always seemed to me to be not only a useless but also a pernicious outgrowth or variant of individualism. Rugged individualism, also known as social Darwinism, is inhumane and illogical; it is based on a completely false use of analogy and an absurd theory of ethics.

The theory is originally based on an unwarranted extension of Darwinism to the history of man. Supposedly, man develops continually struggling against nature—i.e., struggling to 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:

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 were the days of eliminating the unfit... crude... but effective.⁷

After hypnotizing himself into believing that he can gaze into a crystal ball and divine exactly what Nature is doing, who she is, and what her motives are, the Rugged Individualist then returns to the cave, as in Plato, to advise us poor mortals who have not as yet “seen the light.” Horrors! He finds that men are violating Nature’s wishes and injunctions, that the unfit are being protected by “modern medicine and modern philanthropy”⁸ and are debilitating the race by being permitted to live and have children. The Rugged Individualist reluctantly admits that he will never be able to convince us weaklings to abandon penicillin, hospitals, and soft armchairs. So, he very generously compromises and comes up with this magnificent solution: “the broadest application of sterilization.” In other words, the unfit will be magnanimously permitted to live, but not to pollute the racial stream.” Thus will our “responsibility for posterity” be fulfilled.⁹

That is the essence of Dr. Cutten’s thesis and the broad outlines of social Darwinism or rugged individualism. It seems to me that the mere statement of it would expose it as obvious bilge. Apparently not, however, since this philosophy had a considerable vogue, and Dr. Cutten apparently believes in it wholeheartedly. Demolition is therefore in order, although there are so many fallacies it will be difficult to treat them more than sketchily.

1. The Absurd Mysticism about Nature

First, I see no validity whatever in this making nature an anthropomorphic figure Nature. This mystic absurdity Nature apparently is cast in the image of man, with human feelings, desires, and attributes. She is strong, farseeing, 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, industrious people are working in the fields, while one lazy good-for-nothing is sleeping on a hill. Suddenly, the river-bank near-by gives way and the fields are completely flooded. All the good thrifty people are drowned, while the lazy loafer is the only one who survives. Are we to infer from this that the loafer has been “proved” to be “fit,” or has passed some obscure test of “fitness” while the other people have failed the test and are now proved “unfit”? What, then, is the “test”? Where is benevolent Nature now?

And what of the surviving loafer? What is he “fit” for? What superiority has he demonstrated over the others? One and only one “test” has he passed that the others failed, and that is... survival. By sheer luck he survived while the others didn’t.

Thus, since the loafer’s only “fitness” is survival, we see that this alleged process of “survival of the fittest” is a complete and meaningless tautology, simply meaning nothing more nor less than “the survival of those who have survived.”

It is therefore evident that there is no moral or ethical value attaching to a survivor. Sheer luck plays the biggest part in history in determining who has survived. The Rugged Individualist suffers from the delusion that survival—sheer survival—is ipso facto evidence of high moral qualities. There is no justification for this whatever, as was evident from the above example.

Even take another example, where there is a clear-cut case of the “strong” triumphing over the “weak.” Take the case of two hypothetical cavemen, Ug and Ob. Ug is a strong and mighty hunter; he can kill a tiger at a hundred paces, track deer, etc. Ob is not too good at hunting, only good enough to eke out subsistence; he is weak of frame and doesn’t like exercise. But Ob likes to paint pictures on the wall, he likes to meditate on life and the world, he likes to write symbols and make sounds on a primitive gourd. Ug is contemptuous, and one day he confiscates Ob’s skins and food and kills him. It wasn’t much of a fight.

Well, there you are. The “stronger” has won; the “weaker” has lost; but with him was lost the faint precious stirrings of a civilized culture. Where does morality stand on this issue? Has “good” triumphed? Does might make right? Does morality mean barbarism? As far I am concerned, the answer to these questions is a ringing nay!

The Rugged Individualist who gave three lusty cheers on the Ug victory is thus sadly deficient in moral sense. His theory of ethics is on the level of an intolerant barbarian.

3. The Glorification of Struggle

The Rugged Individualist glorifies struggle and condemns the easy path. Since the whole process of civilization has been the cumulative attempt to make it easier to satisfy man’s desires, the Rugged Individualist is of necessity opposed to civilization. We consider man as progressing when he invents ever new ways to “reduce costs” which is simply the process of finding easier ways to satisfy man’s ever-growing desires.

I consider one of the glories of economic freedom and individualism (not rugged, but humane) the ever-growing standard of living, the magnificent increase in opportunities for leisure, and the development of life-giving modern medicine. I consider it a tribute to the moral qualities of an individualist society that private charity and philanthropy helps the unfortunate people in our midst. Private philanthropy is the direct expression of the great Christian principle of the brotherhood of man and the Golden Rule.

Private philanthropy indeed is the only valid expression of these Christian ethical principles; compulsory charity through “social legislation” is the exact contrary: it is the evil imposition of force by one group on another. Christ was a great individualist not because He was rugged, as Dr. Cutten seems to think, but because He recognized that His great ethical principles could only be put into effect through the voluntary action of individuals and not by a self-appointed group of politician-priests who claim the right to coerce people into adopting the Golden Rule by “social legislation.”

The Rugged Individualist, however, disagrees with all this and condemns protection of the “unfit” by minimizing struggle. We all can join in admiring a man who struggles a great deal and finally overcomes all obstacles to achieve a goal. But wouldn’t he and everyone be better off if there were fewer obstacles to begin with? Man progresses not by doggedly climbing over obstacles but by eliminating them! This elimination makes the road easier for him and for those who follow. The sum of human happiness is increased. Three cheers certainly for the Pilgrim Fathers who struggled through with no provisions, etc. But wouldn’t they have been better off if they had had ample provisions? By glorifying the obstacles, which really are simply impediments to man’s happiness, the Rugged Individualist has acquired a peculiarly twisted theory of ethics.

In this sphere there is no final means of scientifically “proving” that the Christian ethic is better than the “rugged” ethic. However, it is clear that Dr. Cutten’s dogmatic claim for a scientific basis for the rugged ethic turns out to be simply what I consider to be an absurd theory of ethics.

However, I will say that the Rugged Individualist is entitled to live according to his ethic if he so desires, provided he does not infringe on my right to live according to the Christian ethic. (Dr. Cutten unfortunately does not stay within these limits.) If the statocracy permits individualism to achieve the humane, comfortable, charitable world in the future, I will be content to sit in a cozy armchair watching via television the Rugged Individualist heroically climbing the Matterhorn. Thus, each according to his taste.

4. The Tyranny of the “Scientific” Eugenist

The Rugged Individualist, however, is unfortunately not content to remain within the realm of polite discussion. As with so many other axe grinders, the State is eventually asked to take a hand, and in this case, it plays a very large role indeed. It is “the broadest possible application of sterilization” to prevent “the pollution of the racial stream.”¹⁰

In other words, rugged individualism really turns out to be rugged collectivism. It is difficult to take this monstrous proposal seriously if not for the fact that other people advance it seriously. The example of a successful large-scale carrying out of this principle has been that of one A. Hitler. Do Hitler’s experiments seem to be an inhuman, perverse process of extermination? Oh no, the rugged philosopher would say; he simply cleansed the “racial stream.”

Of course, Dr. Cutten’s “scientific” program of “cleansing” would, I hope, be based on slightly different standards than Hitler’s. But what standards? And who is to decide them? Who is going to sterilize whom? Let the State get hold of this mighty instrument and we are going to see the greatest “cleansing” process in history: Negroes, Jews, Asiatics, Catholics, Germans, Russians, Communists, capitalists, Republicans, redheads, people under six feet in height, all people with freckles, non-unionists, etc. Yes, I think that sterilization applied on “the broadest possible” basis can perform a process of “cleansing” that will make the old-fangled glaciers, floods, plagues, and the new-fangled atom bombs and germ warfare look like kindergarten games.

Dr. Cutten may well remonstrate that his sterilizing will be directed by a group of “impartial” expert eugenists. Quis custodes custodiet?¹¹ (Aristotle’s great comment on Plato’s fascist-eugenist state run by wise, expert guardians: Who will guard the guardians?)

Even if this sterilization were studiously restricted to drunkards, etc., the entire theory is based on the unfounded assumption that the children of the “unfit” are also “unfit”—and similarly for the “fit.” Heredity is not that simple. How many sons of mighty kings have turned out to be morons? How many sons of great self-made industrialists have turned out to be weaklings? And how many Americans have risen from the ranks of the poor and ignorant? Let us never forget that Beethoven was the son of a confirmed drunkard, a man “unfit” by any eugenic standard. If Dr. Cutten or other “rugged” would-be murderers had been permitted to do their work in that era, the world would have lost a Beethoven. How many unborn geniuses would similarly be slaughtered by the “scientific” rugged eugenists?

When it comes to sterilization, Mr. Rugged Individualist, “kindly include me out.” I’m sure my sentiments will be heartily echoed by all the rest of the nonrugged or antirugged individualists. If, Mr. R.I., you grieve because you cannot impart your gift to the world, remember that “charity begins at home.”

5. The Fallacy of the “Improvement of the Race”

A fallacy committed by many groups of political philosophers is that somehow an individual living in the present is of far less importance and value than some hypothetical person living in the future.

People of the present are supposed to have a sacred duty to sacrifice themselves on the altar of the “future,” for the benefit of some man of the future. Thus, the Marxists justify their unconscionable slaughter as the inevitable birth pangs of a better and happier world of the future.

Aside from the fact that the Marxian-Stalinist future would not be a happy one, I strenuously object to a doctrine that holds a person of the present expendable for the benefit of the future.

The Rugged Individualist, however, justifies slaughter of the present because future individuals are supposedly benefited. “Was nature unkind to the negro when she quietly got rid of the malaria-susceptible members of the race and developed race immunity?”¹² This is merely one example.

All this is repugnant to a true individualist—to him every individual has equal rights and has equal claim to be treated with justice and to have an opportunity for self-development with freedom.

The “dignity of the individual” means every individual regardless of what era he happens to live in. No one can have the right to sweat the present by any sort of Gosplan—whether Stalinist or rugged—for the benefit of the future, even if the future men actually did benefit, which is of course highly doubtful.

Friedrich Nietzsche, the father of the rugged individualists, said that “Man is a bridge and not a goal—the bridge to the Superman.” The humane individualist—the true individualist—says “No! Man himself is the goal; every individual is a goal; no man must be permitted to use any other man as a slave—as a means to any other goal!”

Having presented the reader with this appalling and fallacious doctrine of rugged individualism, Dr. Cutten ends with the usual flourish of desperate alternatives: “Will it be rugged individualism or ragged collectivism? Judge quickly, there is no time to waste.”¹³

To a true individualist this is akin to choosing between hanging and the electric chair. However, I feel in the same position as your friend who commented on the choice facing him between liberty and onions or government paternalism and three square meals a day. He chose the latter, albeit reluctantly. Similarly, I would choose ragged collectivism.

It may be that the reason for the general collectivist spirit of modern intellectuals is that they were presented with exactly the same choice by similar people. In other words, the only type of individualism that they came into contact with was the “rugged” type. The inevitable outcome was their choosing ragged collectivism instead, and for that, they are not to be particularly blamed.

It follows that any widespread distribution of this speech by the foundation would be disastrous to the individualist cause that we all hold so dear. Any converts that may have been made by the uniformly excellent literature that you have distributed until now might very well be lost if people mistakenly believe that all individualism—or that the foundation’s individualism—is necessarily rugged.

Granted that there are many statements that have merit in Dr. Cutten’s speech; they are more than outweighed by the central thesis. I think that the foundation would do itself a very good turn by (1) not distributing this on a widespread basis, and (2) publishing a critique of “Rugged Individualism” that will completely expose it as really perniciously anti-individualist in spirit and completely fallacious in doctrine.

I’d very much like to know what you, Dr. Harper, think of this problem: should individualism be humane or rugged? Thank you for sending me the speech.

Cordially,
Murray

P.S. I just received Leo Wolman’s pamphlet on industrywide bargaining in the mail. It looks like a fine job. The de Jouvenel pamphlet was also very good, providing an excellent complement to the Stigler and Watts work on rent control.