(=22=) Is it said by the leading citizens that wars are necessary in order to kill off the surplus population? If wars are necessary for such purpose, why not have Mr. Leading Citizen and his friends classified as a part of the surplus population on the ground that they are criminally unsocial, and have them taken out to the battlefield and forced to shoot one another? The theory of having the surplus population killed off would thus quickly lose its popularity with the “upper classes.” (=23=) It may be said that the Napoleonic wars removed more than 7,500,000 men from competition in the labor market;[216] and it might be argued by the working man that since war reduces the competition among the workers, the working class should on this account welcome war. Let us see: If four men are competing for two jobs, should two of them be satisfied, and even glad, to have the competition for the jobs reduced by having the other two climb upon their backs and cease to bid for the jobs? It should be kept distinctly in mind that the workers who do not go to war support those who do go to war—always, everywhere, absolutely no exceptions. (=24=) There is a somewhat popular, and simian, assumption that in war—even in beautiful Christian war—the results are “the survival of the fittest,” meaning, in the case of modern wars, the survival of “the more highly civilized,” also the biologically “best.” Of course a “bullet carefully selects its victim.” And do not statesmen tell us on the Fourth of July all about the “splendid intelligence” and the “noble spirit” and the “superiority” of the “brave boys who _died_ in battle”? Does not the recruiting officer try to get the _soundest_ men for slaughter? Let the orthodox worshippers answer: Is pagan Japan more fit for survival than Christian Russia? What show for survival would Belgium have in a contest with Turkey, Spain or Russia?[217] (=25=) A kindred and stupid assumption in all wars is this: _Might makes right._ But if might makes right between two warring nations, then why does not might make right when a strong man by force compels a weaker man to hand over his pocket-book? (=26=) A Scotch philosopher on the “brave boys”:[218] “Omitting much, let us impart what follows: Horrible enough! A whole march-field strewed with shell-splinters, cannon-shots, ruined tumbrils and dead men and horses; stragglers remaining not so much as buried. And those red mound-heaps: aye, there lie the Shells of Men, out of which the life and virtue have been blown; and now they are swept together and crammed down out of sight, like blown Eggshells!... How has thy breast, fair plain, been defaced and defiled! The green sward is torn up, hedge-rows and pleasant dwellings blown away with gunpowder, and the kind seed-field lies a desolate Place of Skulls. Nevertheless, Nature is at work ... all that gore and carnage will be shrouded in, absorbed into manure....