War as a losing account
Who actually gains when civilised nations go to war? Bentham runs the ledger and finds that war is almost always a net loss even for the victor, and its usual causes removable.
War between civilised states, Bentham argues, is almost always a net loss even for the side that wins, once its costs in lives, wealth, and trade are honestly counted. And most of its causes are not fixed features of the world but removable arrangements: secret treaties, standing armies, the scramble for colonies, foreign policy kept in the closed hands of cabinets. He wanted colonies given up, armies cut, and diplomacy opened to public view. In an age of dynastic war the reckoning read as utopian; its afterlife, in the League of Nations and the United Nations, came only long after his death.
- justice
- public policy
- political economy
- international law
- jurisdiction
Enter a dialogue
- Owners could carry off anything portable long before an invading army arrived. Why does that mean no raid of plunder could ever pay for itself?
- A patriot feels his nation's glory lies in its conquests. Why does your list of war's causes put national pride there rather than among its rewards?
- A nation is as likely to lose as to gain by war, you argue, yet the expense is certain and enormous. Does that answer conquerors who grew rich?
- Disputes over borders and over who inherits a throne cause wars, and your cure is clearer laws and titles. How could better drafting prevent a war?