seemingly from the dawn of man all nations have had governments; and all nations have been ashamed of them. nothing is more openly fallacious than to fancy that in ruder or simpler ages ruling, judging and punishing appeared perfectly innocent and dignified. these things were always regarded as the penalties of the fall; as part of the humiliation of mankind, as bad in themselves. that the king can do no wrong was never anything but a legal fiction; and it is a legal fiction still. the doctrine of divine right was not a piece of idealism, but rather a piece of realism, a practical way of ruling amid the ruin of humanity; a very pragmatist piece of faith. the religious basis of government was not so much that people put their trust in princes, as that they did not put their trust in any child of man. it was so with all the ugly institutions which disfigure human history. torture and slavery were never talked of as good things; they were always talked of as necessary evils. a pagan spoke of one man owning ten slaves just as a modern business man speaks of one merchant sacking ten clerks: “it’s very horrible; but how else can society be conducted?” a mediaeval scholastic regarded the possibility of a man being burned to death just as a modern business man regards the possibility of a man being starved to death: “it is a shocking torture; but can you organize a painless world?” it is possible that a future society may find a way of doing without the question by hunger as we have done without the question by fire. it is equally possible, for the matter of that, that a future society may reestablish legal torture with the whole apparatus of rack and fagot. the most modern of countries, america, has introduced with a vague savor of science, a method which it calls “the third degree.” this is simply the extortion of secrets by nervous fatigue; which is surely uncommonly close to their extortion by bodily pain. and this is legal and scientific in america. amateur ordinary america, of course, simply burns people alive in broad daylight, as they did in the reformation wars. but though some punishments are more inhuman than others there is no such thing as humane punishment. as long as nineteen men claim the right in any sense or shape to take hold of the twentieth man and make him even mildly uncomfortable, so long the whole proceeding must be a humiliating one for all concerned. and the proof of how poignantly men have always felt this lies in the fact that the headsman and the hangman, the jailors and the torturers, were always regarded not merely with fear but with contempt; while all kinds of careless smiters, bankrupt knights and swashbucklers and outlaws, were regarded with indulgence or even admiration. to kill a man lawlessly was pardoned. to kill a man lawfully was unpardonable. the most bare-faced duelist might almost brandish his weapon. but the executioner was always masked.
this is the first essential element in government, coercion; a necessary but not a noble element. i may remark in passing that when people say that government rests on force they give an admirable instance of the foggy and muddled cynicism of modernity. government does not rest on force. government is force; it rests on consent or a conception of justice. a king or a community holding a certain thing to be abnormal, evil, uses the general strength to crush it out; the strength is his tool, but the belief is his only sanction. you might as well say that glass is the real reason for telescopes. but arising from whatever reason the act of government is coercive and is burdened with all the coarse and painful qualities of coercion. and if anyone asks what is the use of insisting on the ugliness of this task of state violence since all mankind is condemned to employ it, i have a simple answer to that. it would be useless to insist on it if all humanity were condemned to it. but it is not irrelevant to insist on its ugliness so long as half of humanity is kept out of it.
all government then is coercive; we happen to have created a government which is not only coercive; but collective. there are only two kinds of government, as i have already said, the despotic and the democratic. aristocracy is not a government, it is a riot; that most effective kind of riot, a riot of the rich. the most intelligent apologists of aristocracy, sophists like burke and nietzsche, have never claimed for aristocracy any virtues but the virtues of a riot, the accidental virtues, courage, variety and adventure. there is no case anywhere of aristocracy having established a universal and applicable order, as despots and democracies have often done; as the last caesars created the roman law, as the last jacobins created the code napoleon. with the first of these elementary forms of government, that of the king or chieftain, we are not in this matter of the sexes immediately concerned. we shall return to it later when we remark how differently mankind has dealt with female claims in the despotic as against the democratic field. but for the moment the essential point is that in self-governing countries this coercion of criminals is a collective coercion. the abnormal person is theoretically thumped by a million fists and kicked by a million feet. if a man is flogged we all flogged him; if a man is hanged, we all hanged him. that is the only possible meaning of democracy, which can give any meaning to the first two syllables and also to the last two. in this sense each citizen has the high responsibility of a rioter. every statute is a declaration of war, to be backed by arms. every tribunal is a revolutionary tribunal. in a republic all punishment is as sacred and solemn as lynching.
