194 Declining Effectiveness of Force 



that any other theory of the formation of the 

 State is in fiat contradiction to the teachings of 

 sociology, and will only prepare the way for 

 disastrous political experiences. 



We have already considered this fallacy in our 

 study of the general sociological errors of the 

 philosophy of force, in which we have seen that 

 war is always a process of dissociation, never 

 of association. In order to understand more 

 clearly the error which is involved, it is worth 

 while to consider briefly the true nature of the 

 State. 



Even the philosophy of force cannot deny that 

 the State is an association. What is meant by 

 an association? It is a group of individuals, be- 

 tween whom an agreement, either tacit or formal, 

 has been made not to injure each other. What is 

 meant by injury? It means not to kill or rob each 

 other, or, in other words, not to wage war. 



The State, according to the philosophy of force, 

 is formed by conquest. But in order that a con- 

 quest may be made, necessarily two associations 

 must previously exist, the one which attacks 

 (which Professor Ward calls the spermatozoid), 

 and the one which defends itself (which he com- 

 pares to the ovule). Since these two primitive 

 associations are formed by alliance {i. e., the 

 absence of war between the individuals which 

 compose them), it is therefore the union of men 

 which has formed the first State, and not war 

 between human associations. Certain States in 



