"Oh what fun to be a soldier!" Philippon lithograph, published by Aubert, 2nd half of the 1820s. Al. Brown Univ.
"Large standing armies qu'entretiennent powers of Europe [...] are placing an enormous burden on the industrious people who work with tireless activity to maintain them.
Diplomats are accustomed to watching an acquisition of territory as compensation for pain and expense of the war. But when military successes have led to the convening of a province, I would even say a state, territory of France, I asked what advantage this has led to the department of Aveyron, Dordogne, and fifty more? I asked what compensation they collected conscripts they were removed, they pay millions to creditors of the government? They had a greater outlet for their products, they say, but there is no product that works in these departments the conquered province, Belgium, for example, too great a distance separates them, or the difficulty of communication between them over obstacles insurmountable barrier Customs. How they would export their products in Belgium? They can not even send them to the neighboring department. Break down the barriers that separate citizens speaking the same language and subject to the same laws. They collect a huge advantage, and to get it, there will be no blood had spilled.
It was argued that standing armies were a useful receptacle for scoundrels of a nation. Gentlemen, you better have a plan that allows men to live from their work, a scheme that blinds them the price, it is better to make few bad apples that prepare armies and prisons to accommodate them.
It is sad to say, but camp life is not unique to give to men the qualities that make them useful citizens. She was accustomed to idleness and subservience. To be a good soldier, he must know a waste of time and never resist an order, even a cruel and unjust. A war of passive obedience is absolutely necessary, for it is here that movements of one hundred thousand men compete to a single goal: victory. In society the aim is manifold: it is the greatest good of the greatest number, and it is only acquired through the development of ideas and individual efforts. In civilian life it does obedience to a lawful order, and if the law is bad, you have to criticize. It's not all: the soldier is apt to confuse force with the right and the sword with the right; which is a degradation of the noblest part of the human species. It is therefore necessary to society as the necessary forms with the military regime to be extended at least many men as possible, and restricted the only time they are needed. Powerful interests, I know, are opposed to the defensive system, but to give preference, I know an even more powerful: that people.
If standing armies are accompanied by drawbacks and dangers, if indeed they are ineffective for the nations the security they need against external attacks, nations can they obtain this advantage their militias, that is to say by means of their own citizens accidentally gathered to defend their independence, and organized to resume as soon as the danger is past, the sedentary life and the ordinary course of their occupations? This question has often served as publicists, and even many distinguished military used to join theory to practice their art. If it is possible for large state to defend itself from outside attacks by means of its militia, are strongly urged by his pecuniary interests and policies to prefer this method. Economically, it is disadvantageous to make huge ongoing expenses for the sole purpose of filling of requirements. Politically, it is unwise to put large forces into the hands can be abused.
The militias are not subject to either of these drawbacks. It can not be abused, and their use does not throw the state into great expense, when the state can do without their help. It's just whether they can meet the goal that it offers. [...] I beg you, gentlemen, not to confuse the system to arm an entire nation in his militia, with the extravagant project to make a military nation, that is to say, to form the moving bodies seasoned and ready to support diplomatic intrigue, and ambition of a despot. This madness was never put in absolutely foreign heads the social economy. A farmer, a manufacturer, trader, a craftsman, a worker, a doctor, and all other useful professions, working to provide society which nourishes and maintains: A soldier destroys what others produce. Change the productive classes in classes destructive, or just give more importance to past, and want everyone to be a soldier first and foremost is regarded as the main accessory, is giving precedence to the famine which die on the abundance that is live. A nation can survive as soldiers of robberies and do not produce and can not do anything but eat, it must necessarily plunder those who produce, and having plundered all that is within his reach, friends and enemies, regularly or tumultuously, they must devour itself. History gives us innumerable proofs. [...]
was proposed to charge the soldiers, when the peace reduced to idleness, to perform certain public works. They seem to own at opening of major roads and digging canals. A battalion who leveled an escarpment, is more useful to his country which defeated a hostile force in a foreign war. In summer, a regiment come to camp with the portion of the road or canal that would have company, and the high pay he would receive, would cost less than the salary they would pay for ordinary workers, we avoid the boredom of garrison. The portion of the road or canal that should be in a regiment, bearing his name. A simple monument devote this service, and on further actions memorable because this same regiment would be distinguished. A friend wanted the public good, in 1802, Bonaparte obtain this measure of public utility, but this military leader did not agree. His desire was to save his troops to subdue the nations, and not for serve them, he replied that such work does not suit the French military. He assumed the bias to raise. A prince citizen need not have prejudice, and he worked to destroy it, if it had existed. "
Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832), Full Course of Political Economy practice,
t. V, Paris, Chez Rapilly, 1829.
t. V, Paris, Chez Rapilly, 1829.
0 comments:
Post a Comment