DARWINISM AND POLITICS. 21 



to give more to the " laissez /aire" Radical. 

 The evolutionist politician is more likely to 

 adopt the view that in the interests o f the race 

 we ought t o remove every artificial restrictio n 

 on the operation of natural and sexual sele ction. 

 But the difficulty is where are we to find a 

 line bet ween " natural ' ana " artific ial^ if all 

 the phenom ena of s ociety are, as the evolutio nist 

 is , bound to hold, subject to the same laws o f 

 nature ? If we are content to remove only 

 some artificial restrictions, on what principle 

 can we justify ourselves ? If we are to remo ve 

 ever y artificial restriction that hampers t he 

 struggle for existence, are we not going ba ck 

 to Roii^eaii^O' .State of Nature," the primitive, 

 uncivilised, pre-social condition of mankind ? If 

 we expect the " State of Nature " to be better 

 than the present condition, which is one of at 

 least mitigated or inconsistent anarchy, are we 

 not falliTrg~~back into the " metaphysical " con- 

 ception of N ature and ign oring the scientific 

 conception of society? The "State of Nature," 

 i.e. the unsocial state, is more correctly described 

 by Hobbes as "the war of all against all." On 

 the other hand, when we find the more tender- 

 hearted preacher of evolutionist morality point- 



