Status Updates From A Letter to a Hindu

Note 2/2:
... (immediately) tell us anything about how we OUGHT to live!

I think Tolstoy missed a good chance to invoke the is-ought fallacy here, or, at least, to articulate it explicitly.

The fallacy now casts some worrying doubt on my recent interest in the economics of non-human societies. What can observations on non-human societies even tell me about how human societies SHOULD function, then?

Note 1/2:
I can clearly see an obvious is-ought fallacy in the 2nd 'scientific' justification of coercion that Tolstoy quotes:

'Since it is observed that plants and animals are locked in a constant struggle for existence that results in the survival of the fittest, a similar struggle must be carried on among human beings.'

Here, an observation of what IS (the struggle between the beasts and the plants) doesn't ...

Note n/n:
... abolishing it, despite evidence of financial instability under the Fed

ii) Modern Hayekian-Smithian defenders of capitalism basically always invoke the argument that 'markets have always existed', it is 'human nature' to act only in self-interest, etc. I casually call this the 'human nature ideology/fallacy'.

Note 2/n:
But here Tolstoy accuses science of asserting that 'since coercion between men has always existed, it follows that coercion must continue to exist'.
Since when has science made this claim? Which science? I need examples NOW.

Well then, I have certainly heard VARIATIONS of this argument before. Examples:

i) Beckworth arguing that since the Fed has always existed, we must work with the Fed instead of ...

Note 1/n:
Tolstoy now accuses 'science' of being the new weapon used to justify the position of the oppressors, and I agree with this intuitively — I'm guessing that 'science' means political economy or political philosophy. The idea that’s always front and center in my mind is obviously Hobbes’ justification of the Leviathan, whereby the state of nature is infinitely more unbearable.