Standing Armies

In this way, standing armies came to be introduced.

Armies should be raised:

• in the most convenient way, and
• with the least possible hurt to the country.

Many standing armies may be exclaimed against. But they must be introduced in a certain period of society. A militia commanded by landed gentlemen in possession of the nation’s public offices would never sacrifice the country’s liberties for anyone.

Such a militia would be the best security against a foreign standing army. Standing armies are of two kinds: When the government gives offices to particular persons, and so much for every man they levy. Our own army is modeled after this.

This has less danger than the second kind.

When the government makes a slump bargain with a general to lead out troops for their assistance. This is the model of the standing armies in some little Italian states. They make a bargain with some chieftain in areas where the arts have not yet reached. The officers are all dependent on him. He is independent of the state. His employers lie at his mercy.

But a standing army like ours is not so apt to turn their against the government.

Because the officers:

• are men of honour and
• have great connections in the country.

Yet sometimes, a standing army has proved dangerous to the people’s liberties, when that question on the sovereign’s power was disputed.

This was the case in Great Britain because the standing army generally takes the king’s side. The principle of the soldier is to obey his leader. He thinks that he owes his service to the king because the king appointed and pays him. This would never be the case if a proper militia were established.

This happens in Sweden. People’s liberties there are in no danger. We have considered the laws of nature as they regard justice, police, revenue, and arms.

We shall now consider the law of nations, or the claims which one nation may have on another.