THE strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right
of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an
explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity,
not of will -- at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?
Suppose for a moment that this so-called "right" exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force
creates right, the effect changes with the cause: every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible
to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as
to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey
because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word "right" adds nothing to force: in
this connection, it means absolutely nothing.
Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its never being violated. All
power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at
the edge of a wood: must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it
up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.
Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers. In that case, my original