New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
And you will note this: that it does not allow force to be used for the
settlement of differences by anybody. The community does not use force
as such at all; it merely cancels the force of units and determines that
nobody shall use it. It eliminates force. And it thus cancels the power
of the units to use it against other units (other than as a part of the
community) by standing ready at all times to reduce the power of any one
unit to futility. If A says that B began it, the community does not say,
"Oh, in that case you may continue to use your force; finish him off."
It says, on the contrary, "Then we'll see that B does not use his force;
we'll restrain him, we won't have either of you using force. We'll
cancel it and suppress it wherever it rears its head." For there is this
paradox at the basis of all civilized intercourse: force between men has
but one use--to see that force settles no difference between them.
And this has taken place because men--individually--have decided that
the advantage of the security of each from aggression outweighs the
advantage which each has in the possible exercise of aggression. When
nations have come to the same decision--and not a moment before--they
will protect themselves from aggression in precisely the same way--by
agreeing between them that they will cancel by their collective power
the force of any one member exercised against another.
I emphasize the fact that you must get this recognition of common
interest in a given action before you can get the common action. We have
managed it in the relations between individuals because, the numbers
being so much greater than in the case of nations, individual dissent
goes for less. The policeman, the judge, the jailer have behind them a
larger number relatively to individual exceptions than is the case with
nations. For the existence of such an arrangement by no means implies
that men shall be perfect, that each shall willingly obey all the laws
which he enforces. It merely implies that his interest in the law as a
whole is greater than his interest in its general violation.
No man for a single day of his life observes all the Ten Commandments,
yet you can always secure a majority for the support of the Ten
Commandments, for the simple reason that while there are a great many
who would like to rob, all are in favor of being protected against the
robber. While there are a great many who would like on occasion to kill,
all are in favor of being protected against being killed. The
prohibition of this act secures universal support embracing "all of the
people all of the time"; the positive impulse to it is isolated and
occasional--with some individuals perhaps all the time, but with all
individuals only some of the time, if ever.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account