[ssf] Some thoughts from William Godwin

[@mparo]

> And what are in most cases the pretences upon which war is
> undertaken? What rational man could possibly have given himself the
> least disturbance for the sake of choosing whether Henry the sixth or
> Edward the fourth should have the style of king of England? What
> English man could reasonably have drawn his sword for the purpose of
> rendering his country an inferior dependency of France, as it must
> necessarily have been if the ambition of the Plantagenets had
> succeeded? What can be more deplorable than to see us first engage
> eight years in war rather than suffer the haughty Maria Theresa to
> live with a diminished sovereignty or in a private station; and then
> eight years more to support the free-booter who had taken advantage
> of her helpless condition?
> 
> The usual causes of war are excellently described by Swift.
> "Sometimes the quarrel between two princes is to decide which of them
> shall dispossess a third of his dominions, where neither of them
> pretends to any right. Sometimes one prince quarrels with another,
> for fear the other should quarrel with him. Sometimes a war is
> entered upon because the enemy is too strong; and sometimes because
> he is too weak. Sometimes our neighbours want the things which we
> have, or have the things which we want; and we both fight, till they
> take ours, or give us theirs. It is a very justifiable cause of war
> to invade a country after the people have been wasted by famine,
> destroyed by pestilence, or embroiled by factions among themselves.
> It is justifiable to enter into a war against our nearest ally, when
> one of his towns lies convenient for us, or a territory of land that
> would render our dominions round and compact. If a prince sends
> forces into a nation where the people are poor and ignorant, he may
> lawfully put the half of them to death, and make slaves of the rest,
> in order to civilize and reduce them from their barbarous way of
> living. It is a very kingly, honourable and frequent practice, when
> one prince desires the assistance of another to secure him against an
> invasion, that the assistant, when he has driven out the invader,
> should seize on the dominions himself, and kill, imprison or banish
> the prince he came to relieve."(1*)
> 
> If we turn from the foreign transactions of states with each other to
> the principles of their domestic policy, we shall not find much
> greater reason to be satisfied. A numerous class of mankind are held
> down in a state of abject penury, and are continually prompted by
> disappointment and distress to commit violence upon their more
> fortunate neighbours. The only mode which is employed to repress this
> violence, and to maintain the order and peace of society, is
> punishment. Whips, axes and gibbets, dungeons, chains and racks are
> the most approved and established methods of persuading men to
> obedience, and impressing upon their minds the lessons of reason.
> There are few subjects upon which human ingenuity has been more fully
> displayed than in inventing instruments of torture. The lash of the
> whip a thousand times repeated and flagrant on the back of the
> defenceless victim, the bastinado on the soles of the feet, the
> dislocation of limbs, the fracture of bones, the faggot and the
> stake, the cross, impaling, and the mode of drifting pirates on the
> Volga, make but a small part of the catalogue. When Damiens, the
> maniac, was arraigned for his abortive attempt on the life of Louis
> XV of France, a council of anatomists was summoned to deliberate how
> a human being might be destroyed with the longest protracted and most
> diversified agony. Hundreds of victims are annually sacrificed at the
> shrine of positive law and political institution.

Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
by William Godwin
1793


from excellent link nothingness.org, research&virtual library, and from 
there to author at
http://phare.univ-paris1.fr/