To the Editor:
I have some objections to assertions Shola Adidoye made in her George Soros-influenced letter to the editor (2/21), regarding the threat of laissez-faire ideology. The first is her understanding of "Social Darwinism." Quoting Soros: "Implicitly laissez-faire capitalism also embraces a socially Darwinistic, 'survival of the fittest' mentality." Had she read anything by Herbert Spencer, the originator of the phrase, "survival of the fittest," Abidoye would realize that George Soros is mistaken.
The survival of the fittest concept was simple. Classical liberal scholar George H. Smith (1990) notes that in his Essays, Spencer writes that "The law is not the survival of the 'better' or 'stronger'...It is the survival of those which are constitutionally fittest to thrive under the conditions in which they are placed."
Smith emphasizes that "survival of the fittest" is a description, not an evaluation. It is based in the fact that an organism must generate its own actions in order to live, and that the nature of these actions depends on the nature of the organism and its environment. Fitness is adaptation "to the requirements of survival."
Abidoye and Soros are troubled that lately "market values have undermined traditional values." Yet, the market does not value things; a free market is the interaction of individuals pursuing their values through voluntary relationships among each other. Are Abidoye and Soros upset that people's values have changed, and do they want to make laws to force people to pursue "traditional" values? Their problem is that if people are free, they may not do what they want them to do.
In a free market, people are free to pursue their self-interest. Abidoye sets up a false alternative commonly used by altruists: either the end of an action is for others, and not for oneself, or for oneself, and not for others. This distinction is false. One's self-interest is not restricted to considering only one's self. Consider your own interests, and those you know: Do you value the well-being of other people, and are you willing to take action to support this well being?
Taking such action means taking responsibility for achieving your goals. The best refutation of the idea that a free market does not promote caring for others is history: look at the number of charities around today, and the number of charitable organizations that have been crowded out by inefficient government programs.
Abidoye attacks freedom with a quote by Soros: "the rights of the individual are safeguarded but...there are some shared values that hold society together." What does that mean? That people are free doesn't mean they have no shared values -- if they did not share values, there would be no cooperation, no businesses, no charities, and no schools. Do Abidoye and Soros want to violate people's rights to force everyone to pursue the same values?
Laissez-faire and unchecked individualism bring about "the complete subordination of the common interest," says Abidoyoe. What is "the common interest"? People have interests, and they may have them in common. Why can't people with common interests get together and pursue them in a free society?
I am sick and tired of people invoking some supernatural "common good" or "common interest" as sort of higher supernatural Platonic ideal that people should live for. People who use these terms claim that the individual's self-interest should be sacrificed for the "common good," and that the purpose of one's life is to live for the sake of society: everyone else but oneself. Well, excuse me for being naive, but I still don't know what the common good is.
Brian Schwartz '97