En el fondo, la conquista no sólo es el origen, es también el fin supremo de todos los Estados grandes o pequeños, poderosos o débiles, despóticos o liberales, monárquicos o aristocráticos, democráticos y socialistas también, suponiendo que el ideal de los socialistas alemanes, el de un gran Estado comunista, se realice alguna vez.

Que ella fue el punto de partida de todos los Estados, antiguos y modernos, no podrá ser puesto en duda por nadie, puesto que cada página de la historia universal lo prueba suficientemente. Nadie negará tampoco que los grandes Estados actuales tienen por objeto, más o menos confesado, la conquista. Pero los Estados medianos y sobre todo los pequeños, se dirá, no piensan más que en defenderse y sería ridículo por su parte soñar en la conquista.

Todo lo ridículo que se quiera, pero sin embargo es su sueño, como el sueño del más pequeño campesino propietario es redondear sus tierras en detrimento del vecino; redondearse, crecer, conquistar a cualquier precio y siempre, es una tendencia fatalmente inherente a todo Estado, cualquiera que sea su extensión, su debilidad o su fuerza, porque es una necesidad de su naturaleza. ¿Qué es el Estado si no es la organización del poder? Pero está en la naturaleza de todo poder la imposibilidad de soportar un superior o un igual, pues el poder no tiene otro objeto que la dominación, y la dominación no es real más que cuando le está sometido todo lo que la obstaculiza; ningún poder tolera otro más que cuando está obligado a ello, es decir, cuando se siente impotente para destruirlo o derribarlo. El solo hecho de un poder igual es una negación de su principio y una amenaza perpetua contra su existencia; porque es una manifestación y una prueba de su impotencia. Por consiguiente, entre todos los Estados que existen uno junto al otro, la guerra es permanente y su paz no es más que una tregua.

Está en la naturaleza del Estado el presentarse tanto con relación a sí mismo como frente a sus súbditos, como el ob

". . . that the State is, or ought to be, founded on contract." This would be true if the words which I have italicized should be omitted. It was the insertion of these words that furnished the writer a basis for his otherwise groundless analogy between the Anarchists and the followers of Rousseau. The latter hold that the State originated in a contract, and that the people of to-day, though they did not make it, are bound by it. The Anarchists, on the contrary, deny that any such contract was ever made; declare that, had one ever been made, it could not impose a shadow of obligation on those who had no hand in making it; and claim the right to contract for themselves as they please. The position that a man may make his own contracts, far from being analogous to that which makes him subject to contracts made by others, is its direct antithesis.

Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of the government. The history of government is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of government, not the increase of it.

We have already observed that by excluding the immense majority of the human species from its midst, by keeping this majority outside the reciprocal engagements and duties of morality, of justice, and of right, the State denies humanity and, using that sonorous word patriotism, imposes injustice and cruelty as a supreme duty upon all its subjects. It restricts, it mutilates, it kills humanity in them, so that by ceasing to be men, they may be solely citizens — or rather, and more specifically, that through the historic connection and succession of facts, they may never rise above the citizen to the height of being man We have also seen that every state, under pain of destruction and fearing to be devoured by its neighbor states, must reach out toward omnipotence, and, having become powerful, must conquer. Who speaks of conquest speaks of peoples conquered, subjugated, reduced to slavery in whatever form or denomination. Slavery, therefore, is the necessary consequence of the very existence of the State.

The government is everywhere sovereign in the state, and the constitution is in fact the government.

Briefly, the State is that organization
in society which attempts to maintain a
monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only
organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for
services rendered but by coercion.

If there is a state, then necessarily there is domination and consequently slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable — that is why we are enemies of the state.

For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it “war”; then ennobled the mass slaughter that “war” involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it “conscription” in the “national service.” For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it “taxation.

The modern state, in its essence and objectives, is necessarily a military state, and a military state necessarily becomes an aggressive state. If it does not conquer others it will itself be conquered, for the simple reason that wherever force exists, it absolutely must be displayed or put into action.

The State has invariably shown a striking talent for the expansion of its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it. Since the State necessarily lives by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, and since its expansion necessarily involves ever-greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise, we must assert that the State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist.

Examples out of History, of People free and in the State of Nature, that being met together incorporated and began a Common-wealth. And if the want of such instances be an argument to prove that Government were not, nor could not be so begun, I suppose the contenders for Parernal Empire were better let it alone, than urge it against natural Liberty. For if they can give so many instances out of History, of Governments begun upon Paternal Right, I think (though at best an Argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force) one might, without any great danger, yield them the cause. But if I might advise the Original of Governments, as they have begun de facto, lest they should find at the foundation of most of them, something very little favourable to the design they promote, and such a power as they contend for.

If there is a State, there must be the domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable - and this is why we are the enemies of the State.

All the power [the State] has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power.