Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay — Kant — John Shaqi
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay
Kant · en
[123] Mallet du Pan boasts in his seemingly brilliant but shallow
and superficial language that, after many years experience, he
has come at last to be convinced of the truth of the well known
saying of Pope [_Essay on Man_, III. 303]:—
“For Forms of Government let fools contest;
Whate’er is best administered is best.”
If this means that the best administered government is best
administered, then, in Swift’s phrase, he has cracked a nut to
find a worm in it. If it means, however, that the best conducted
government is also the best kind of government,—that is, the
best form of political constitution,—then it is utterly false:
for examples of wise administration are no proof of the kind of
government. Who ever ruled better than Titus and Marcus Aurelius,
and yet the one left Domitian, the other Commodus, as his
successor? This could not have happened where the constitution
was a good one, for their absolute unfitness for the position was
early enough known, and the power of the emperor was sufficiently
great to exclude them.
SECOND DEFINITIVE ARTICLE OF PERPETUAL PEACE
II.—“The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free
states.”
Nations, as states, may be judged like individuals who, living in the
natural state of society—that is to say, uncontrolled by external
law—injure one another through their very proximity.[124] Every
state, for the sake of its own security, may—and ought to—demand
that its neighbour should submit itself to conditions, similar to
those of the civil society where the right of every individual is
guaranteed. This would give rise to a federation of nations which,
however, would not have to be a State of nations.[125] That would
involve a contradiction. For the term “state” implies the relation of
one who rules to those who obey—that is to say, of law-giver to the
subject people: and many nations in one state would constitute only
one nation, which contradicts our hypothesis, since here we have to
consider the right of one nation against another, in so far as they
are so many separate states and are not to be fused into one.
[124] “For as amongst masterless men, there is perpetual war, of
every man against his neighbour; no inheritance, to transmit to
the son, nor to expect from the father; no propriety of goods,
or lands; no security; but a full and absolute liberty in every
particular man: so in states, and commonwealths not dependent on
one another, every commonwealth, not every man, has an absolute
liberty, to do what it shall judge, that is to say, what that
man, or assembly that representeth it, shall judge most conducing
to their benefit. But withal, they live in the condition of
a perpetual war, and upon the confines of battle, with their
frontiers armed, and cannons planted against their neighbours
round about.” (Hobbes: _Leviathan_, II. Ch. XXI.) [Tr.]