In a rather curious post on Hayek, Dr Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute seems to be interpreting Hayek as saying that while human nature and history leads to an "urge to share everything when value could not be stored", we progressed as a species by repudiating that urge. I have tried as hard as possible to look at this from the principle of charity, but I am still left with the conclusion that Hayek - and by extension therefore Pirie - is arguing that we are predisposed as a species to sharing but we can only grow by repudiating that heritage and cultivating selfishness.
UPDATE: could this be a case of argumentum ad verecundiam? Whatever Hayek's standing an appeal to him as authority is not of itself enough to demonstrate truth. In this case, two of the five tests for a legitimate argument from authority have not been met and the other three are clearly open to argument.
Of course since in the eyes of the ASI Wikis are inherently collectivist and therefore the spawn of the devil (I paraphrase!) I don't suppose they give much weight to anything in Wikipedia.