Did Darwin get it right?

Economics Economics Questions
1

From Robert Wright’s “The moral animal” (emphasis added):

Among the things Charles Darwin found troubling about the Fuegian Indians was their apparent lack of social inequality. “At present,” he wrote in 1839, “even a piece of cloth is torn into shreds and distributed; and no one individual becomes richer than another.” Such “perfect equality,” he feared, would “for a long time retard their civilization.”

Darwin noted, by way of example, that “the inhabitants of Otaheite, who, when first discovered, were governed by hereditary kings, had arrived at a far higher grade than another branch of the same people, the New Zealanders — who although benefited by being compelled to turn their attention to agriculture, were republicans in the most absolute sense.”

The upshot: “In tierra del Fuego, until some chief shall arise with power sufficient to secure any acquired advantages, such as the domesticated animals or other valuable presents, {236} it seems scarcely possible that the political state of the country can be improved.”

Well, what say you?

2

Of course. To strive for equality is to strive for extinction.

3

He deserves a Darwin Award for such nonsense.

4

Sure, but I was actually interested in his account of the rise of the state, whether he intended it to be such an account. Was monarchy the only way out of primitive communism (not an anomaly, as Hoppe portrays it to be)? Is this why we still have the state today, because anarchic societies have gone ‘extinct’ and those that remained fostered the State as a very important institution, which in turn annoys us these days?

5

From Hume’s History of England:

THE GOVERNMENT of the Germans, and that of all the northern nations, who established themselves
on the ruins of Rome, was always extremely free; and those fierce people, accustomed to
independance and enured to arms, were more guided by persuasion than authority, in the
submission which they paid to their princes. The military despotism, which had taken place in the
Roman empire, and which, previously to the irruption of those conquerors, had sunk the genius of
men, and destroyed every noble principle of science and virtue, was unable to resist the vigorous
efforts of a free people; and Europe, as from a new epoch, rekindled her ancient spirit, and shook

off the base servitude to arbitrary will and authority, under which she had so long laboured. The
free constitutions then established, however impaired by the encroachments of succeeding
princes, still preserve an air of independance and legal administration, which distinguish the
European nations; and if that part of the globe maintain sentiments of liberty, honour, equity, and
valour superior to the rest of mankind, it owes these advantages chiefly to the seeds implanted
by those generous barbarians...

The Saxons, who subdued Britain, as they enjoyed great liberty in their own country, obstinately
retained that invaluable possession in their new settlement; and they
imported into this island the same principles of independance, which they
had inherited from their ancestors. The chieftains (for such they were,
more properly than kings or princes) who commanded them in those
military expeditions, still possessed a very limited authority; and as the Saxons exterminated,
rather than subdued the ancient inhabitants, they were indeed transplanted into a new territory,
but preserved unaltered all their civil and military institutions. The language was pure Saxon;
even the names of places, which often remain while the tongue entirely changes, were almost all
affixed by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German; and the same picture
of a fierce and bold liberty, which is drawn by the masterly pencil of Tacitus, will suit those
founders of the English government. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power,
was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal
qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price
was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which, though
proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible
mark of his subordination to the community.

6

One can wonder if, had the Saxons been under the sway of a culture of ‘sharing’ and still retained this freeish political culture, we’d mention them in passing, as no more important to the history of Britain than the American natives turned out to be to the history of the Americas.

How, than, did the Saxons come to have a relatively free culture, is the next question.