The Essence of Darwinism and the Basis of Modern Orthodoxy 123
finest, perhaps its only, full application in this analogous realm, not in the domain
that elicited the original theory itself.
The primary argument of laissez-faire rests upon a paradox. One might
suppose that the best path to a maximally ordered economy would emerge from an
analysis conducted by the greatest experts all assembled, and given full power to
execute their recommendations (the closest human analog to Paley's lone Deity),
followed by the passage of laws to implement these rationally-derived, higher-level
decisions. Yet Adam Smith argued that a society should follow the opposite path
as a best approach to this desired end: law makers and regulators should step aside
and allow each individual to struggle for personal profit in an untrammeled way—
a procedure that would seem to guarantee the opposite result of chaos and disorder.
In allowing the mechanism of personal struggle to run freely, good performers
eliminate the less efficient and strike a dynamic balance among themselves. The
"fallout," for society, yields a maximally ordered and prosperous economy (plus a
hecatomb of dead businesses). The mechanism works by unbridled struggle for
personal reward among individuals.
Schweber documents numerous sources in Darwin's wide readings for this
central theme of political economy. In May 1840, for example, Darwin
encountered the following passages in J. R. McCulloch's Principles of Political
Economy (2nd edition of 1830—see Schweber, 1980, p. 268):
Every individual is constantly exerting himself to find out the most ad-
vantageous methods of employing his capital and labor. It is true, that it is
his own advantage, and not that of society, which he has in view; but a
society being nothing more than a collection of individuals, it is plain that
each, in steadily pursuing his own aggrandisement, is following that precise
line of conduct which is most for the public advantage (p. 149). The true
line of policy is to leave individuals to pursue their own interests in their
own way, and never to lose sight of the maxim pas trop gouverner [not to
govern too much]. It is by this spontaneous and unconstrained... effort of
individuals to improve their conditions... and by them only, that nations
become rich and powerful (p. 537).
The theory of natural selection lifts this entire explanatory structure, virgo
intacta, and then applies the same causal scheme to nature—a tough customer who
can bear the hecatomb of deaths required to produce the best polity as an
epiphenomenon. Individual organisms engaged in the "struggle for existence" act
as the analog of firms in competition. Reproductive success becomes the analog of
profit—for, even more than in human economies, you truly cannot take it with you
in nature.
Finally, continuing the analogy, Paley's dethronement follows the most rad-
ical path of supreme irony. For, in the ideal laissez-faire economy, all firms
(purified in the unforgiving fires of competition) become sleek and well-designed,
while the entire polity achieves optimal balance and coordination. But no laws
explicitly operate to impose good design or overall balance by fiat— none at all.
The struggle among firms represents the only causal process at