Wednesday 1st March 2006 AD

"HUME ON EMPIRE" 

In previous Daily Digs we have questioned the economics of imperial war - "Of the great empires before us that waged wars on foreign soil, what did they ultimately fight for? Economically, did they benefit from sending their armies far from home to defend their money, borders and markets?" 

David Hume was a sociologist and economist. In the glory days of Britain's empire, he was pondering the very same question. 

In 1759, Hume writes "In Roman and other ancient republics there are an extraordinary concurrence of circumstances to make them {the people} submit to grievous burdens. There comes a time when the public itself is almost in continual alarm, and men are obliged, every moment, to expose themselves to the greatest dangers for the empire's defense. A continual 
succession of wars makes every citizen a soldier: He takes the field in his turn. This service is indeed equivalent to a heavy tax." 

Hume goes on to point out that ancient Rome lived in a continual state of war with all it neighbors. Its only soldiers or citizens that did not feel the burden of the "heavy tax" of battle were those that were either "addicted to arms" or fought for honour. Hume points out, however, "these were unacquainted with profit, industry or pleasure." 

But what of the economics of peace muses our 18th Century writer? 

"Everything in the world is purchased by labor; and our wants are the causes of our labor. When a nation abounds in manufactures, mechanical arts and labor; the proprietors and farmers of land study agriculture like a science, and re-double their industry and attention. In times of peace and tranquility, the superfluity(1) which arises from all their labor is not lost; but exchanged with the manufactures and labor of others for the luxuries they now covert." 

"But it is easy, " continues Hume, "for the public {civil government} to convert may of these manufactures into soldiers. Accordingly we find, that this is the case in all civilized governments. When a sovereign raises an army, what is the consequence? He imposes a tax! This tax obliges people to retrench labor and enlist as troops."(2)

Hume raises interesting points. In times of peace, a nation's labor creates common wealth, which is naturally exchanged amongst its people. Yet a time is reached in imperial Rome where it finds itself living in continual fear of all its neighbors. Its citizens are happy to forgo wealth-generating labor to fight external wars in the empire's defense. How much of this fear 
was genuinely founded and how much was cleverly promoted by its civil government intent on raising and maintaining an army? The longer and more an empire enlists troops to fight its wars, the more productive labour is retrenched and lost from the economy. 

Sincerely - Philip Judge pjudge@anglofareast.com 

(1) Superfluity : more than enough / flowing with out friction. 
(2) David Hume, Essays: Moral, Political and Literacy (1752)