It is the same with a people as it is with a man. If it wishes to give
itself some gratification, it naturally considers whether it is worth what it
costs. To a nation, security is the greatest of advantages. If, in order to
obtain it, it is necessary to have an army of a hundred thousand men, I have
nothing to say against it. It is an enjoyment bought by a sacrifice. Let me
not be misunderstood upon the extent of my position. A member of the assembly
proposes to disband a hundred thousand men, for the sake of relieving the
tax-payers of a hundred million.
If we confine ourselves to this answer, "The hundred thousand men,
and these hundred million of money, are indispensable to the national
security: it is a sacrifice; but without this sacrifice, France would be torn
by factions or invaded by some foreign power" — I have nothing to object
to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which theoretically
contains nothing which militates against economics. The error begins when the
sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody.
Now I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the proposal has
taken his seat, some orator will not rise and say, "Disband a hundred
thousand men! Do you know what you are saying? What will become of them?
Where will they get a living? Don't you know that work is scarce everywhere?
That every field is overstocked? Would you turn them out of doors to increase
competition and to weigh upon the rate of wages? Just now, when it is a hard
matter to live at all, it would be a pretty thing if the State must find
bread for a hundred thousand individuals! Consider, besides, that the army
consumes wine, arms, clothing — that it promotes the activity of manufactures
in garrison towns — that it is, in short, the godsend of innumerable
purveyors. Why, anyone must tremble at the bare idea of doing away with this
immense industrial stimulus."
This discourse, it is evident, concludes by voting the maintenance of a
hundred thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the necessity of the
service, and from economical considerations. It is these economical
considerations only that I have to refute.
A hundred thousand men, costing the taxpayers a hundred million of money,
live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred million can supply. This
is that which is seen.
But, a hundred million taken from the pockets of the tax-payers, ceases to
maintain these taxpayers and their purveyors, as far as a hundred million
reaches. This is that which is not seen. Now make your calculations. Add it
all up, and tell me what profit there is for the masses?
I will tell you where the loss lies; and to simplify it, instead of
speaking of a hundred thousand men and a hundred million of money, it shall
be of one man and a thousand francs.
We will suppose that we are in the village of A. The recruiting sergeants
go their round, and take off a man. The tax-gatherers go their round, and
take off a thousand francs. The man and the sum of money are taken to Metz,
and the latter is destined to support the former for a year without doing
anything. If you consider Metz only, you are quite right; the measure is a
very advantageous one: but if you look toward the village of A, you will
judge very differently; for, unless you are very blind indeed, you will see
that that village has lost a worker, and the thousand francs which would
remunerate his labor, as well as the activity which, by the expenditure of
those thousand francs, it would spread around it.
At first sight, there would seem to be some compensation. What took place
at the village, now takes place at Metz, that is all. But the loss is to be
estimated in this way: At the village, a man dug and worked; he was a worker.
At Metz, he turns to the right about and to the left about; he is a soldier. The
money and the circulation are the same in both cases; but in the one there
were three hundred days of productive labor, in the other there are three
hundred days of unproductive labor, supposing, of course, that a part of the
army is not indispensable to the public safety.
Now, suppose the disbanding to take place. You tell me there will be a
surplus of a hundred thousand workers, that competition will be stimulated,
and it will reduce the rate of wages. This is what you see.
But what you do not see is this. You do not see that to dismiss a hundred
thousand soldiers is not to do away with a hundred million of money, but to
return it to the tax-payers. You do not see that to throw a hundred thousand
workers on the market, is to throw into it, at the same moment, the hundred
million of money needed to pay for their labor: that, consequently, the same
act that increases the supply of hands, increases also the demand; from which
it follows, that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfounded. You do not
see that, before the disbanding as well as after it, there are in the country
a hundred million of money corresponding with the hundred thousand men. That
the whole difference consists in this: before the disbanding, the country
gave the hundred million to the hundred thousand men for doing nothing; and
that after it, it pays them the same sum for working. You do not see, in
short, that when a taxpayer gives his money either to a soldier in exchange
for nothing, or to a worker in exchange for something, all the ultimate
consequences of the circulation of this money are the same in the two cases;
only, in the second case the taxpayer receives something, in the former he
receives nothing. The result is — a dead loss to the nation.
The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test of
progression, which is the touchstone of principles. If, when every
compensation is made, and all interests satisfied, there is a national profit
in increasing the army, why not enroll under its banners the entire male
population of the country?
