Chapter 33 CHAPTER I THE EXPENSES OF THE SOUND OR COUNTRY
The primary task of the monarch is to protect the country's security from the invasion and ravages of enemy countries.To accomplish this task, the monarch must resort to military power.However, in different social states and stages of development, the required military expenditures are very different.
In the lowest, savage hunting society, everyone is both a hunter and a warrior. The aborigines in North America are a good example.They fight in defense of their tribe or for revenge, just as they work for a living at home.In this case the prince and the state do not exist, and the tribe pays nothing for his fighting or war life.
The situation is much the same in the more advanced nomadic societies.Among the Tartars and the Arabs, for example, everyone is both a nomad and a warrior.They have no fixed residence, either live in tents, or live in wagons that can migrate.Whole tribes or peoples are kept in a state of constant migration as the seasons change, or as a result of occasional events.If the pasture in a certain place is eaten up by the livestock they graze, they will move to another pasture, and the cycle will start again.In the dry season, they moved to the river; in the wet season, they moved back to the highlands.Because their people are used to wandering around, they will not irresponsibly leave the old, young, women and children behind to take care of the livestock when encountering a war, but turn everyone into charging warriors.Although the purposes of war and life are different, their way of life has not changed whether they are soldiers or herdsmen.In war, they fight side by side, so everyone does what they can.Tatar women also went to war, as we have often heard.When they are victorious, they can have everything that the enemy nation has.However, if they are defeated, their entire nation will perish, not only livestock, but even women and children will become the other party's spoils of war.As for the majority of the warriors who did not die in battle, they had to submit to the conqueror in order to survive; some of the remaining people were driven into exile.
For Tatars or Arabs, many daily lifestyles and habits are preparations for future battles.The games they usually play, such as running, wrestling, practicing sticks, throwing guns, drawing bows, etc., seem to be fighting.Their combat status is the same as usual, relying on their own livestock for survival.Although these nations have chiefs or monarchs, the chiefs or monarchs have never paid for their usual training.The only reward they expected or demanded was the opportunity to plunder during the war.
Since hunting cannot provide a stable source of living materials, it cannot support too many people, so the number of hunters usually does not exceed two or three hundred people.In contrast, the nomads' ranks sometimes reached two or three hundred thousand.Generally speaking, if their migration process is not hindered in any way, they will migrate to area B with abundant pasture after the pasture in area A is eaten up.In this way, the number of people they can accommodate has been constantly expanding.Neighboring hunter-gatherers, therefore, are less of a threat to civilized nations than nomads.Therefore, the wars of the Indians in the Americas are not terrible at all, but the countless invasions of the Tatars in Asia are the most frightening.Thucydides once said that neither European nor Asian could stand against a united Scythian.And the facts also proved his thesis.Scythia (or Tartar) was in a boundless, unguarded wilderness.In the presence of tribes of conquerors, or under the rule of a chieftain, the people generally unite and ravage all parts of Asia into deserts.Another large nomadic people, inhabiting the great deserts of Arabia, were united only once under Muhammad and his successors.The cause of that unity was religious fanaticism, not conquest.Of course, the result of that unity is still as described above.Just imagine, if the American hunters were replaced by nomads, then the lives of the residents of the neighboring European colonies would definitely not be as stable as they are now.
In a more advanced agricultural society, without developed manufacturing and foreign trade, everyone is a warrior, or can easily become a warrior.People are exposed to the sun and rain every day in the open air when they are engaged in agricultural production.This difficult daily life has just tempered their ability to endure the hardships of war.In fact, there are similar difficulties in agricultural work as there are in war.Take digging ditches as an example. Farmers need to dig ditches constantly in their agricultural work, and they also dig trenches and build walls on the battlefield.The abilities honed in agricultural work facilitated their effectiveness on the battlefield.Like the games of the nomads, the daily amusements of the peasants seemed to be battles.However, since farmers are not as leisurely as herdsmen, these games cannot be played very often.Although all are warriors, farmers are not as good at fighting as herdsmen.Of course, in their case, the monarch or the state generally does not need to pay to train their war capabilities.
Unlike nomadism, the very nature of agriculture dictates that it must be stationary.Therefore, even the most ignorant and backward peasants have a fixed place of residence.If they abandon this residence, they will suffer a great loss.Therefore, when a war breaks out, farmers cannot go out with all their strength like hunter-gatherers and nomads.Generally speaking, in an agricultural society, the old and young, women and children stay behind to look after their homes, while men who have reached the age of military service should all go to the battlefield, especially for small ethnic groups.Moreover, men of military service age in a country generally account for about one-fourth or one-fifth of the country's population.As long as the war occurs after the sowing period begins and before the harvest period ends, even if the farmers and the main labor force all leave their homes to participate in the war, they will not suffer too much loss.Because they believe that during this period, the elderly, women and children can do all the farm work well.Therefore, generally speaking, in the event of a short-term war, they do not need the support of state expenses and can be completely self-reliant.In other words, the monarch and the state neither need to spend money to train them, nor need to pay a lot of money to maintain them in battle.Citizens of ancient Greek city-states seem to have performed military service in this way before the Second Persian War.Before the Peloponnesian War, the Peloponnesians also served in this way.Thucydides has described that the Peloponnesians left the battlefield around summer to return home to harvest their crops.This was also the approach taken by the Romans from the reign of the kings to the beginning of the republic.After the siege of Vey, they began to maintain the cost of fighting in the front by collecting fees from the people in the rear.After the fall of the Roman Empire, kingdoms across Europe were built on its ruins.Before and after the establishment of feudal laws in these kingdoms, many feudal lords and their subjects paid their own expenses to serve the king.In battle, as at home, they were always self-reliant, never receiving any stipends or financial support from the king.
As society progressed further, due to the progress of manufacturing and the improvement of warfare technology, it was no longer possible for soldiers to support themselves.Taking peasant expeditions as an example, when the expedition took place after the sowing period began and before the harvest period ended, their departure had little effect on the harvest.During this time, even if they do not work, nature will let the crops grow by themselves.For the average skilled worker, however, the effects of war were quite different.Take blacksmiths, carpenters, weavers, for example. Once they leave the place where they work, they will cut off their only source of income.For, for their work, nature can give them no help, and they must depend entirely on their own labour.Therefore, if they cannot support themselves financially because of their military service to the state, the state should pay for their support.From this point of view, in a country, if most of the residents are skilled workers and manufacturers, causing most people to go to military service, then the state has to pay for their living expenses during their military service.
Moreover, the art of warfare has gradually developed into a deep and delicate science.War is no longer the simple and casual small confrontation and small contention in the early society.Moreover, the duration of the war is also uncertain. For example, wars often occur continuously, and each time lasts for more than half a year.It is therefore necessary, at least during wars, for the state to maintain a subservient and conscripted population.Regardless of one's original occupation, long-term military service at one's own expense must be a heavy burden.Therefore, after the Second Persian War, the Athenian army seemed to have adopted a unique military system.This system means that part of the soldiers are composed of native people, and the other part is composed of foreigners, and both are paid by the state.Since the siege of Veil, Roman troops who remained in the front were also paid a certain amount.In the following periods of feudal government, feudal lords and their subordinates basically exempted themselves from military service by paying money, and this money could be used to maintain those who had to do military service.
Military service is a much smaller proportion of the total population of a civilized society than it is in a savage society.In a civilized society, the expenses of the army would be borne by those laborers who did not serve in the army.As far as the laborers are concerned, they not only have to bear the expenses of the army, but also have to maintain their own expenses, and according to their status, they have to bear the expenses of the administrative and judicial organs accordingly.The number of soldiers, therefore, cannot exceed what these laborers can maintain.In ancient Greece, a quarter or a fifth of the population of a small agricultural country could be called a soldier, and they were always in service.However, in modern times, the number of soldiers in civilized countries generally does not exceed 1% of the national population, otherwise it will bring an excessive burden to the people and even endanger the development of the national economy.
Only after the monarch or the country has trained its troops for war will it become a big expense to support the army, and the previous expenses do not seem to be large.Military training in the republics of ancient Greece was one of the compulsory education for free citizens.Cities seem to have public squares, and teachers give youths various military training under the supervision of government officials.This simple facility expense is basically all the expenses paid by the Greek republics for training citizens to fight.Similar to the arenas of ancient Greece, ancient Rome had similar playing fields.For the same purpose, the later feudal countries also stipulated many times that citizens must practice bows and arrows and receive other military training, but it seems that they did not get the expected results.Later, either because of lack of accountability on the part of officials, or for some other reason, the regulations always ended up being dead letters.With the continuous change of government, military training has gradually moved away from the masses.
During the period of ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, and a long period after the establishment of the feudal system, soldiers were not an independent profession, let alone constitute a class.People of any profession not only think that they are suitable to be a soldier in peacetime, but also feel that they have the obligation to join the army in time of war.
It can be said that war technology is the most important of all technologies.With the improvement and advancement of technology, this technology has become the most complex of all technologies.Although the degree of perfection of the art of war depends on the state of mechanical technology and other related technologies in a certain period of time, in order for the art of war to reach a very perfect degree, some citizens must take it as a profession.Of course, the improvement of this technology, like other technologies, must also attach great importance to the division of labor.However, this division of labor is different from the division of labor in other technologies: the division of labor in other technologies is because individuals realize that it is more beneficial to specialize in one occupation than to engage in multiple occupations; and making soldiers an independent occupation , it is out of national interest considerations, not personal considerations.Just imagine, in peacetime, if a person spends most of his time participating in military training without asking for payment, then he cannot gain any benefits other than gaining some military knowledge and fun.Only when the state pays them will they attend training for their own benefit.However, this awareness is often lacking in many countries.
Relatively speaking, herders had a lot of free time, early farmers had a little leisure time, and craft workers or manufacturers had little free time.Thus, with respect to military training, a herdsman may spend a great deal of time, and an early farmer part of his time, but a craftsman or a manufacturer may spend very little time, for if they spend an hour in military training, they will Lost hourly earnings.Out of self-interest considerations, they will naturally be very resistant to this training.Furthermore, the advancement of technology and manufacturing will inevitably promote the improvement of agricultural production, so that farmers, like workers, do not have much leisure time.Naturally, peasants also resisted military training and gradually lost their sense of combat.But it is precisely because agricultural improvement increases wealth that it is easy to arouse the coveting and aggression of neighboring countries.Experience tells us that countries that work hard to get rich are often the most targeted by other countries.Therefore, if the country does not adopt a new national defense strategy, the weakening of the people's fighting spirit will make them lose their ability to defend themselves.
At this time, the country generally has no choice but to adopt the following two national defense strategies: regardless of the interests, qualifications, occupations, and wishes of the people, force all or some citizens of the right age to participate in military training with strict laws; Special independent occupation.
When the country adopts the first strategy, the country's army is called the militia; when the country adopts the second strategy, the country's army is called the standing army.The only job of the standing army is to conduct military training, and its main source of income is living expenses or salaries issued by the state.Relatively speaking, the military training of the militia is only a temporary task, and they still have to rely on their original occupation to support themselves.The essential difference between these two types of soldiers is that the militiamen are more like workers, craftsmen, and merchants than soldiers; while the standing army is more of a military nature.
There are also different types of militia units.Some countries only conduct military training for citizens without organizing them into independent troops. These citizens do not have formal and fixed officers.In the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, the military training of citizens in their hometowns was generally separated, either by themselves or with their friends, and they would only be assigned to a specific unit during the war.Other countries are different. The militia not only undergoes military training, but is also organized into fixed units.For example, this is the case in Britain, Sweden and even some militia countries in modern Europe.Whether in peacetime or wartime, each militia in the country is subordinate to a specific unit and has a formal and fixed military commander.
Before the invention of firearms, armies were only as good as each soldier's proficiency and skill with the weapon.Physical strength and agility are the most important, and they usually determine the outcome of a battle.Like the current swordsmanship, the proficiency and skill of using weapons cannot be learned in an ordinary social environment.To acquire that kind of martial arts, you can only enter a specific school, be taught by a specific teacher, and supplemented by learning alone or with friends of the same skill.After the invention of firearms, physical strength, dexterity, and even skill and proficiency in the use of weapons were much less important than before.While the new firearms will not raise the clumsy to the same level as the skilled, they will be closer to each other than before.Moreover, it is generally believed that in the study of troops, the skill and proficiency required to use new firearms can be continuously acquired.
Therefore, it is not so much the skill and proficiency of soldiers in using weapons that determine the outcome of modern warfare, but rather the discipline, order and speed of obeying orders.Modern firearms have sound and smoke. Long before the battle began, people often felt that they might not even know how they died when they heard the sound of gunfire.As a rule, then, as soon as a battle begins, the army loses discipline, order, and obedience.Ancient battles were different.Except for the roaring of people, there was no loud noise or smoke, and the causes of injuries and deaths were all known; everyone could see clearly whether there were deadly weapons nearby.At this time, an army which has full confidence in the proficiency and skill with which it is used is much easier to maintain discipline and order at any stage of the war than when firearms are used.What needs to be pointed out here is that only soldiers who practice in the same army can gain discipline, order and speed of obeying orders.
However, no matter how well trained, a militia is no match for a well-disciplined and well-trained standing army.Soldiers who train every day or every two days are more proficient with weapons than those who train once a week or once a month.In modern times, although the army's proficiency in using weapons is not as important as before, at present, the proficiency in using weapons is still more important.The Prussian army, for example, is said to be superior because it is said to be better at using weapons.
Just imagine, there are two kinds of soldiers: one kind of soldier only needs to obey the command of the chief once a week or every month, and the rest of the time is free to deal with his own affairs without being under the control of the chief; They are all under the supervision of the chief—even if they go to bed and get up, they must follow the command of the chief.Then, comparing the above two, the latter type of soldier is definitely better than the former type in terms of awe of the officer and speed of obeying orders.It may therefore be said that militias are often inferior to standing armies in the use of arms, and still less in discipline and obedience.Moreover, in modern warfare, discipline and obedience are much more important than skill in using weapons.
The Tartar and Arab militias are the best militias, because they follow and obey the chiefs, and acquire the habit of respecting their superiors and obeying orders promptly, like a standing army.Thus, for example, the militia in the Highlands of Scotland operate under the command of their own chief.However, unlike the Tatar and Arab militias, the Scottish Highland militias have fixed residences, do not wander around like herdsmen, and usually do not follow the chiefs to migrate to other places.Therefore, compared with the Tatars and Arabs, they are less willing to follow the chiefs to distant battlefields, and they are also less willing to stay on the battlefield for too long.Once they have taken their spoils, they are eager to return home, and even the chief can't stop them.This means that they are inferior to Tatars and Arabs in obedience to their rulers.Moreover, they are accustomed to a fixed life on the highlands and rarely go to the wild, so they are far inferior to Tatars and Arabs in terms of military training and good use of weapons.
In fact, any kind of militiaman can become a qualified standing army soldier after taking part in a few battles.Because they practice daily and receive orders from their superiors, they become accustomed to obeying orders quickly, like a standing army.No matter what their previous occupations, having fought in a few battles, they are bound to gain all the advantages of a standing army.The militias of America, therefore, are in every way equal to a standing army, even if it is as valiant as the most tenacious veterans of France and Spain.
Having made this distinction clear, we can prove by historical fact that a disciplined standing army is far superior to a militia.
As far as we know, the army commanded by King Philip of Macedon was one of the earliest standing armies recorded in history.It regularly fought wars with the Thracians, Ilios, Thessalians and even nearby Greek city-states.His army may have been a militia at first, but after many battles it was gradually honed into a well-trained standing army.Even during brief periods of peace, he did not disband the army, but carefully maintained it.After that, after long and fierce wars, he continuously defeated and conquered the brave and refined militias of the major Greek city-states.Then, it went to war with the Great Persian Empire.As soon as the battle began, he quickly routed the weak and poorly trained Persian militia.The decline of the Greek city-states and the Persian Empire demonstrated the superiority of the standing army over the militia.This is the first great revolution that has been well-documented in human history.
The rise of Rome and the replacement of Carthage was the second great revolution in human history.These two republics are famous in history, and their rise and fall have common reasons.
From the end of the First Carthaginian War to the beginning of the Second Carthaginian War, the Carthaginian army was successively led by three generals - Hamilcar, his son-in-law Hasdrubal and his son Hannibal , has been fighting.First, they punished the rebellious slaves in the country; second, they suppressed the rebellious nations in Africa; finally, they conquered the Kingdom of Spain.In these several wars, the army has been strictly trained like a standing army.With Hannibal at the head of the army, they began to attack Italy from Spain.Although the Romans at that time did not live very peacefully, they did not experience the above-mentioned wars.Therefore, their military training is very loose.It can be said that at Trebia, Sremia, and Kenny, when the Roman army and Hannibal's army fought, it was almost like a militia against a standing army.This situation has basically determined the outcome of these wars.
The standing army remaining in Spain was also stronger than the Roman militia.As a result, these standing troops, led by Hanniba's younger brother Hasdrubal Jr., drove out all the Roman militias in Spain within a few years.
Afterwards, the Roman militia who fought for a long time on the battlefield gradually became a well-trained standing army.In contrast, Hannibal's army was not adequately supplied by his own country, so his inherent advantages continued to disappear.Later, Hasdrubal the Younger felt it necessary to go to Italy to aid his brother with all the standing troops remaining in Spain.But the result was that the whole army was wiped out.It is said that they were led astray during the march and came to a strange country, where they were raided by another equally elite standing army.
After the army of Hasdrubal the Younger had left Spain, the Roman general Scipio met there only resistance from a few militias, all of which were weaker than his army.So he conquered those militias, and his own militias unconsciously became a well-trained standing army in war.Then, this standing army came to Africa, and it was only some militiamen who resisted them.At this time, in order to defend Carthage, Hannibal's standing army was recalled, and those African militias who had failed also joined Hannibal's standing army.Most of the soldiers in Hannibal's army were these African militiamen.Thus, the fate of the two hostile republics was decided in the Battle of Chama.
From the end of the Second Carthaginian War to the decline of the Roman Republic, the Roman army was a full-fledged standing army, but it still needed training in war.When Macedonia's standing army confronted it and the war reached its climax, if the Macedonian king hadn't shown weakness, the Roman army might have to go through two or three major wars or battles, or even more difficulties, to conquer this small country.At that time, the militias of all the civilized countries of the ancient world (such as Greece, Syria, and Egypt) could only provide weak resistance to the standing army of Rome.However, the militias of some barbaric countries resisted fiercely. For example, the Scythian (Tatar) militias of the countries north of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea led by Mysrides were the strongest enemies the Roman army encountered; The Arab and Germanic militias were also very strong and defeated the Roman army several times.But in general, as long as the Roman army is well commanded, all militias will not be their opponents.However, the Romans felt that their empire seemed large enough, so they did not completely conquer Pasia and Germania.In fact, the ancient Pasiya people seem to belong to the Scythian or Tartar peoples, and they have always retained many customs and habits of their ancestors.The ancient Germans, on the other hand, were nomads like the Scythians or the Tartars.They are led by chiefs, they migrate to various places in peacetime, and fight in wartime.Their militia was like that of the Scythians or the Tartars, or perhaps descended from them.
There are many reasons for the looseness of the Roman army, and too strict discipline may be one of the reasons.In their heyday, they were already invincible all over the world.So they began to throw away those heavy armors that were no longer necessary, and began to ignore those hard drills that were no longer necessary.Moreover, especially the standing armies guarding the frontiers against the Germans and Bennonians supported their generals, often against the emperor.Therefore, for the Roman emperors, these standing armies constituted a threat to them.I heard from some writers that, in order to reduce the threat of these standing armies, Deokrisian the Great (others say Constantine) recalled the large army composed of two or three legions stationed on the frontier to the interior and sent them to the interior. Divide into small units and disperse them in various provinces, and prohibit them from moving unless force is needed to expel foreign enemies.We all know that when the army stays in a commercial and manufacturing city for a long time, the soldiers themselves will gradually become merchants, artisans or manufacturers, and the nature of soldiers will gradually transform into that of citizens.As a result, Rome's standing army gradually declined into a corrupt, untrained militia.Thus, when the Germanic and Scythian militias invaded Rome, the Western Roman Empire was already irresistible.The emperors had to hire militias from other countries to resist other countries.By this method they lasted for a while, but they had no other choice.
The decline of the Western Roman Empire was the third great revolution in human history that has been well-recorded in ancient history.The result of its decline shows the fact that, as far as the militia is concerned, the militias of barbaric countries are superior to those of civilized countries, that is to say, nomadic peoples Soldiers are even more powerful.However, it needs to be clear that what the militias defeated here was not the standing army, but only those militias whose training and discipline were weaker than themselves, such as the Greek militias defeating the Persian militias, and the Swiss militias defeating the Austrian and Burgundian militias.
The Germanic and Scythian peoples built their own country on the ruins of the Western Roman Empire.Their force remained for some time what it had been, a militia of shepherds and farmers led by chiefs in times of war.Therefore, they are well-trained and disciplined.Later, due to the continuous improvement of production technology and the continuous development of the industry, people gradually became less obedient to the leadership of the chief, and most people did not have so much free time for military training.As a result, the militia system in the feudal era gradually declined, and training and discipline continued to loosen.To remedy this disadvantage, they set about creating a standing army.We can imagine that once the scheme of forming a standing army is adopted by a civilized country, other civilized countries will follow suit accordingly.For only in this way can they defend themselves against other nations which have established standing armies.
Even though soldiers of standing armies have never been in battle or used artillery, they often display the courage of veterans, and go into battle as if they were the hardiest and most experienced veterans.For example, the Russian Empire was peaceful for two decades before 1756, and soldiers did not go to battle much. In 1756, when Russia attacked Poland, the bravery shown by the Russian army was comparable to that of the most tenacious and experienced Prussian soldiers in Europe at that time.For another example, England spent twenty-eight years of peace before the outbreak of the Spanish War in 1739, but its standing army did not degenerate, and they also showed extraordinary bravery when they attacked Catakis.However, this battle is indeed an adventure for them.Because the days of peace have passed for a long time, the generals and soldiers may indeed forget their skills.But a well-managed standing army never forgets the spirit of valor, provided it persists in training.
If the defense of a civilized state rests on a militia, it is at any moment liable to be invaded by a neighboring barbarian nation.We can see from the historical fact that the Tatars conquered the civilized countries of Asia that the barbarian militia was stronger than the civilized militia.However, a well-disciplined and well-trained standing army is superior to any militia.Only such an army can well defend the country from the encroachment of its barbarous neighbors, and therefore a standing army is the only way to preserve civilization permanently or for a long time.Of course, only wealthy and civilized nations can maintain such armies well.
A well-disciplined standing army enables civilized nations to defend themselves against foreign enemies, and barbarous nations to become civilized.The state can rely on the might of the standing army to enforce the sovereign's decrees to the remotest parts of the empire.Moreover, the power of the standing army can maintain a considerable degree of normal rule in countries without a standing army and no politics.Anyone who has carefully studied the various reform measures of Peter the Great in Russia will find that the core of Peter the Great's various measures is to build a regular standing army.It can be said that the standing army was the emperor's tool for enforcing and maintaining all other laws.The subsequent period of peace and order enjoyed by the Russian Empire was closely related to this standing army.
Some republican minds have often feared that a standing army would be a hindrance to liberty.Indeed, such hindrances may exist when the interests of those in charge of the armed forces are at odds with those of the constitution of the country.Caesar's standing army that destroyed the Roman Republic, and Cromwell's standing army that dissolved England's long-established parliament are good examples.However, if the military power of a country is in the hands of the monarch, and the main generals of the armies are the nobles of the country, there will be no such threat.That is to say, a standing army would never be a hindrance to liberty, if the military forces of the country were in the hands of those who enjoy the greatest civil power, whose best interest lies in supporting it.A standing army, on the other hand, may in some cases be advantageous to liberty.This is because, with the protection of the standing army, the monarch thinks he is safe, and does not need to monitor the actions of the citizens like some modern monarchs of the republic.For the chief executive of the country, although he has the support of the majority of the people, his safety will be threatened as long as there is dissatisfaction among the masses; sometimes, a small dispute may cause a big revolution.Therefore, for its own safety, the government has no choice but to use its power to suppress all kinds of dissatisfaction.With a standing army, the monarch or chief executive of a country feels that he not only has reliable nobles to support him, but also an elite standing army to protect him, so he doesn't have to worry about those rough and wanton protests.He feels secure in his position, and he may calmly condone or ignore these protests.Liberty approaching insolence, therefore, is only possible in a country which is secured by a standing army of elites; and only in such a country is it possible for the prince not to suppress every kind of insolent liberty for the sake of public security.
Generally speaking, the first task of the monarch is to protect the safety of the country's society and prevent it from being violated by other independent countries.With the progress of social civilization, the performance of such tasks gradually requires more and more expenses.In the process of social progress, the maintenance of social forces has also undergone great changes.In the past, the monarch did not need to pay any fees to maintain it in peacetime or wartime; later, the monarch needed to pay fees to maintain it in wartime; and later, the monarch needed to pay fees to maintain it in both peacetime and wartime.
The invention of firearms brought about a great change in the art of warfare.As a result, the cost of training the army in peacetime and using the army in wartime has continued to increase.Weapons and ammunition used by the army are more expensive than before.For example, muskets are more expensive than spears and bows; cannon or mortars are more expensive than ballistas or stone cannons.在以前阅兵时，发射出去的矛和箭总是很容易收回，因此花费极少；然而近代阅兵所消费的火药，放射出去就不再返回，需要的费用非常巨大。相对于弩炮和石炮，大炮和臼炮不仅造价更高，而且非常笨重。这种笨重机械的制造，需要花费很大的费用，而制成后运往战场，又需要花费很大的费用。并且，由于近代大炮的战斗效力要高于以前的石弩，因此一个都市要抵御大炮的攻击，所需要的费用也要巨大得多。在近代，国防费用不断增加的原因有很多。一方面，有事物自然发展不可避免的趋势；另一方面则是战争技术的不断进步，而火药的发明即是引起技术大革命发生的一个偶发事件。
在古代，富裕的文明国家很难抵御贫穷的野蛮国家的侵略；但是在近代，贫穷的野蛮国家则很难抵御富裕的文明国家的宰割。近代战争需要的巨大的火药费用，为那些能负担这些费用的国家提供了一种利益，从而使文明国家比野蛮国家处于更优越的地位。表面上看，火器的发明似乎对维持文明有害；但实际上，它是有利于文明的维持的。
君主的第二大任务，就是设立一个公正严明的司法机关，以保护公民免受他人的欺辱或压迫。履行这一任务，其费用的大小也因社会时期的不同而不同。
狩猎时期的人们几乎没有财产，有也只是值两三天劳动的劳动价值。当然，固定的法官和司法机关也就没有存在的必要了。因为没有财产，所以人们相互伤害的只是声誉或身体。虽然遭遇凶杀、殴打、诽谤的受害人感到痛苦，但加害者却没有获得什么利益。但是，损害财产的情况就不一样了。往往加害人所获得的利益，与受害人所遭受的损失一致。人们之所以去伤害他人的身体或声誉，一般来说是受到了嫉妒、怨恨、愤怒等情绪的影响，但大多数人并不会经常被这些负面情绪冲昏头脑。就算是最坏的人，也只不过是偶尔受到这些情绪的影响。对有些人来说，伤害他人的确可以使自己的情绪得到暂时的抒发，但对大多数人而言，这并不能带来任何实际和长远的利益，因此他们一般都会克制自己的不良情绪。正是由于人们的这种性情，即使没有法官存在，人们还是能安定地生活。
然而，随着社会的发展，富人的贪得无厌和穷人的好逸恶劳，使人们产生了侵害他人财产的情绪。并且，这种情绪是极为牢固和普遍的。人们常说，哪里有巨大的财富，哪里就有严重的不平等。一个富豪的存在，至少同时伴随着五百个穷人的存在。也就是说，少数人的富有总是伴随着多数人的贫穷。而穷人对富人的嫉妒和怨恨，会促使他们产生侵犯富人财产的情绪。然而，对于那些劳动多年或世代劳动而拥有财富的人来说，如果他们的财产得不到司法的保障，那么他们每天都将无法高枕无忧。于是，富人的周围随时都可能潜伏着未知的敌人，即使他没有得罪他人，也无法避免他人对他财富的侵犯。而要想免受侵害，他就只能依靠强大的司法保护，因为法官能够持续打击所有的非法行为。这就是为什么人们一旦获取了贵重的财产，就必然要求建立民权政府的原因。而在人们没有财产的社会，或者财产只值两三天劳动价值的社会，则没有设立这种政府的必要。民权政府的性质，要求人民对其服从。由于大笔财富的存在是建立民权政府的必要性，因此，民权政府逐渐发展的主要原因就是财产价值的不断增大，因而，它自然要求人民对它更加服从。
这时就会产生一些问题，那就是人们为什么会服从这种政府？在民权机关产生之前，为什么有一小部分人拥有支配其他大多数人民的权力？对于这些问题，可以从以下四个方面来寻找答案。
首先就是自身的种种优越性。它包括个人资质的优越；力量、容貌、敏捷等身体方面的优越；智慧、道德、正义感、坚强、克制能力等意识方面的优越，等等。在任何社会时期，如果要获取统治权，光有强壮的身体是远远不够的，还必须得到聪明的头脑和高尚的品德的支持。我们知道，身体强壮的人依靠体力可以迫使一两个弱者服从于他。而一个头脑聪明、品德高尚的人，凭自己的本领却可以统治相当多的人。然而，头脑的好坏以及品德的高尚与否，都难以用眼睛看出来，因此它经常会成为争议的对象。所以，不管是野蛮社会还是文明社会，它在规定等级与服从的制度时，都不会以那些抽象的品质为标准，而总是以那些明显和清楚的事物为标准。
其次就是年龄的优越性。年老者只要没有老到腐朽不堪，就总能比有同等身份、同等财产和同等能力的年轻者更受人尊敬。在北美土著人那些狩猎民族中，年龄是划分身份和优先地位的唯一标准。他们对长辈称父，对同辈称兄弟，对于下级称子。而在一切都平等的文明国家里，除了年龄之外，就没有其他标准可以用来划分身份了。于是，年龄通常被当成划分身份的标准。如在兄弟姐妹之间，年长的地位优先。继承父亲的遗产时，诸如名誉称呼这一类属于不可分割的人身权，一般都是将其分配给年长的人。年龄划分出来的这种身份的不同优越性，是非常显而易见，并且是毫无争议的。
再次就是财产的优越性。我们知道，在所有的社会，富人都有较大的优越性，而在财产最不平等的野蛮社会里，富人的优越性最大。鞑靼一个酋长所拥有的牲畜，繁殖之后足足可以养活一千人。在那个野蛮社会里，人们不可能将自己消费不了的生产物去交换制造品，因此，酋长所拥有的牲畜除了养活那一千人之外，没有别的用途。而他所养活的那一千人，便不得不听从他的安排，战时服从他的命令，平时服从他的管理。这样一来，他就成了他们的统帅和裁判官。在那时，酋长所拥有的优越地位，就是因为他拥有较多的财富。然而，在文明社会里，即使一个人的财产非常多，完全服从他的人可能也不到十个。即使他的财产增值之后，能够维持一千人，并且可能实实在在地维持了一千人，但这一千人同时也付出了相应的代价。因为如果这个富人没有获得相应的等价物的话，他也就不会给予这一千人任何东西。因此可以说，那些人只是表面上靠他养活，而实际上并不是。在文明社会里，也许只有一些家仆才是真正地靠他人养活并服从他人命令的人。但不可否认的是，财产的作用在文明富裕的社会里仍然非常大。与年龄、个人资质所划分的优越性相比，财产划分出来的优越性更大。也正是因为这样，在任何时期，在财产不平等的社会里，人们经常会感到不满。
人类社会的第一个时期是狩猎民族社会，在这个社会里不存在财产的不平等。普遍贫困，造成了普遍平等。年龄和个人资质的优越，就是唯一决定命令和服从关系的条件。人类社会的第二个时期是游牧民族社会，在这个社会里财产出现了非常不平等的可能，这时期由财产造成了优越性的不同，从而明确地区分了命令和服从的关系。例如阿拉伯的酋长、鞑靼的可汗，他们的势力大得基本上达到了完全专制独裁的地步。
最后就是门第的优越性。这种优越性是以上一辈财产的优越性为前提的。任何家族都是从旧时传承下来的。王侯的祖先可能更为人所知，但在数目上却是更少于乞丐的祖先。任何地方的古老世族，都表明了它曾经拥有过巨大的财富，或者说曾经因财富而获得了巨大的声誉。就是因为这样，世族总是比暴发户更能得到人们的尊敬。就如人们憎恨那些篡夺者而敬爱昔日的王族一样，很大程度上只是因为人们自然而然的心理状态而已；武官们一般都是甘心服从昔日指挥他的上司，而无法忍受他的下级爬到他的上面去，也是因为相同的心理。人们也都愿意服从他们自己或祖先曾服从过的门第，而无法忍受那些一直弱于他们的门第，突然成为了他们的支配者。
门第的不平等是由于财产上的不平等造成的，因此，在财产平等、家世也基本上平等的狩猎民族中，就不可能存在这种门第的差别了。当然，不可否认的是，在那种社会里，即使聪明勇敢者的儿子和愚昧怯懦者的儿子本领不相上下，但前者还是更受人尊敬。不过，这种差别对待是非常有限的，因为世上很少存在一个完全依靠智慧德行来维持家世荣誉的大门第。而在游牧社会中，实际上存在门第的差别。那时，他们一般还不使用或者说不知道奢侈品，平时也就不需要耗费较大的财产，于是财富便可以一直保持在同一家族手里很长时间。所以，在游牧民族中，拥有很多财富的家族最多，那些依靠祖先的权势和财富而受人尊敬的门第也就最多。
门第和财产，既是使一个人的地位高于另一个人的两大因素，也是个人优越性的两大前提，同时也是将人自然地划分为发布命令者和服从命令者这两种人的主要原因。尤其是在游牧民族中，那些拥有多数羊群的大畜牧者，要么因为有巨大的财富养活了很多人而受人尊敬，要么因为出身高贵、门第显赫而受人尊重。于是，相对同族中其他的牧羊者或畜牧者，他自然就有一种优越性。他能团结到更多的人由他支配，从而拥有更多的兵力。在战时，那些愿意在他旗下的人，也多于其他旗帜下的人。这样，凭借着门第和财产，他自然获得了一种行政权力。正是因为他能比其他任何人团结到更多的人由他支配，所以对于那些危害他人的人，他也就有能力强迫其赔偿损害。这样一来，所有那些自己没有防御能力的人，都会请求他的保护。于是，任何人感到自己遭人侵害时都会向他求助；而他对这些纠纷所做的裁判，与别人所做的裁判相比，又更容易使被告人服从。最后，凭借门第和财产，他获得了一种司法权力。
人类社会发展的第二个时期，即游牧民族时期，出现了财产上的不平等。它带来了人与人之间某种程度的权力和服从（以前不可能存在），从而带来了维持权力和服从所必须的政府组织。虽然说这种社会的进步是自然而然的过程，和上述那些因素并没有必然联系。然而，上述那些因素对于权力和服从关系的确定，的确做了很大的贡献。富人毫无疑问会维护这种关系，因为只有这种关系得到维持才能保证他们的既得利益。于是，小富人们团结起来一起保障大富人的财产，因为他们认为这样做的话，大富人也会一起保障他们的财产。所有的牧人，都认为小牧群的安全必须依靠大牧群的安全。同样，要维持他们的小权力，就必须先维持最大牧者的较大权力。只有他们服从于那些地位更高的人，那些地位低的人才会服从他们。最后，他们形成了一个小贵族。在他们看来，只有保障君主的财产、服从君主的权力，君主才会保障他们的财产和权力。政府组织的建立，就是为了保障财产的安全，保护富人来对抗穷人，保护有产者来对抗无产者。
于是，在一段时间内，君主的司法权力不但不需要耗费什么东西，反而是一种收入的来源。因为要求他裁判的人，总是愿意给他报酬，不断地给他赠送礼物。君主权力确立后，由于犯罪者破坏了君主的安宁，因此他除了要赔偿原告的损失外，还需要向君主缴纳罚金。在亚洲，鞑靼政府统治时期，对君主以及特定部落、氏族或领地的酋长诸侯来说，司法行政权力都是一项大的收入来源。在日耳曼和塞西亚民族建立的欧洲各政府的统治，情况也是这样。
以前，司法裁判权都是由君主或酋长自己行使。后来由于种种原因，司法裁判权就委任代理人或裁判官来行使。然而，对于司法收入的情况，代理人仍然对君主或酋长负有报告的义务。通过阅读亨利二世给巡回裁判官的训示，我们就可以明白，那些巡回裁判官的任务，只不过是为国王征收收入而已。在当时，君主就是希望从司法行政中获得一种收入，而司法行政的确向君主提供了一项固定的收入。
由于这种敛财的性质，使司法行政组织不可避免地出现了很多的弊端。那些送大礼请求主持公道的人，往往得到多于的公道；而送小礼请求主持公道的人，常常谈不上获得了什么公道。在当时，享有司法权的人常常做出很多不恰当的事情。例如，为了获得原告更多的礼物，他经常迁延，延迟判决或者不进行判决；为了获得被告的罚金，他常常将无罪之人判为有罪。我们只需翻一翻欧洲各国的古代史，就可以清楚地发现这些司法上的弊病。
如果司法职权是君主或酋长行使，那么即使是滥用也无法纠正，因为他们是最有权势的人，任何人都不能对他们进行责难。但是，如果司法职权是由代理人行使，那么当其滥用时还有纠正的可能性。因为如果代理人仅仅是为了自己的利益而做出一些不正当的行为，君主就可以惩罚他或强制他改正错误。当然，如果代理人所做的不正当行为是为了君主的利益，例如为了向任命他的人献殷勤，那么在大多数情况下，司法权的滥用就犹如君主滥用一样，无法得到纠正。因此，可以说，在很长一段时期内，所有野蛮国家的司法行政都处于极端腐败的状态。那些在罗马帝国废墟上建立起来的欧洲各国，其司法行政的腐败更为严重。就算是在最好的国王的统治下，也不可能有什么公正、平等，就更不用说在最坏国王的统治下的情况会怎么样了。
游牧民族中的君主或酋长，其实就是整个民族中最大的牧羊者或畜牧者。他们和那些小牧羊者一样依靠畜牧来生活。同理，在游牧民族发展之后的农耕民族中，君主或酋长其实也是民族中最大的地主，诸如特洛伊战争时期的希腊各部族、刚移居到罗马帝国废墟上的日耳曼人和塞西亚人的祖先。和一般的地主一样，君主和酋长的收入也完全依靠自己的私有土地。在近代欧洲，君主和酋长的私有土地被称为御地。平日里，君主或酋长除了依臣民请求动用司法权力处理违法乱纪的事情外，不需要做别的事情。在臣民们请求他帮助时，会向他赠送礼物，他的全部收入基本上就依赖这些礼物了。这些礼物可以说是对他行使司法行政权的报酬，当然，在特殊的情况下不是这样。荷马曾经说：“为了保持友谊关系，奥格默农将希腊的七个城市送给了埃塞利斯，在那七个城市中，人民赠送的礼物就是埃塞利斯能够获得的唯一利益。这些礼物的实质就是司法行政的手续费。”当这些手续费成为君主的经常性收入时，君主就不可能会放弃这些收入，哪怕是任何人提议他放弃，他都不会放弃的。不过，人们曾经提议，叫他将这礼物的收取进行一下明确的规定。然而，由于君权至上，即使规定得再好，要想制止君主超越规定的范围，还是非常困难的。于是，任意收取礼物的状态被继续放任，这些不确定的礼物导致了司法行政上严重的腐败现象。
后来，有很多原因导致法令明确规定，君主或其代理人和裁判官，无论在什么情况下，都不得收受礼物。其中一个比较重要的原因，就是国防费用不断增加，君主私有土地的收入不足以支付国家的行政费用，人民不得不缴纳各种赋税来支持国防费用。从这里可以看出，要想明确规定礼物的收受，的确很困难，但是将其彻底废除倒是非常容易的。从此，审判基本上是免费的了。这是因为，君主征收的赋税，也可以补偿以前收受的礼物部分并有所盈余；并且，裁判官享受的薪俸，基本上可以被认为是以前收受礼物时可以分得的份额。
不过，严格来说，无论哪个国家的审判，都不可能是完全免费的。因为诉讼当事人至少也应该给付一定的律师费，不然律师就会更加不为当事人的利益着想了。就各个法庭总的计算来看，诉讼当事人每年给付的律师费总额，几乎比裁判官的薪俸还要多。虽然国王给付了裁判官薪俸，但任何地方处理诉讼的必要费用都没有减少。因此，可以说禁止裁判官收受当事人的礼物，并不是为了减少司法费用，而是为了防止司法腐败。
对人们来说，裁判官这个职位是一个有名誉的官职，即使报酬再少，依然有很多人想从事。例如，比裁判官职位较低的治安司事，虽然工作异常麻烦，报酬也不高，但是很多的乡绅却都想将其弄到手。对于各文明国家来说，所有司法人员的薪俸和司法行政的费用即使很浪费，其总额也只是占了国家全部费用的极小比例。
另外，法院收取的手续费可以支付全部的司法经费。这样不仅不会使司法行政陷于严重的腐败，还的确节省了国家收入的一小笔开支。但是，如果一部分法院手续费要被作为像君主这样有权势的人的主要收入的话，那么要对这种手续费进行有效的规定就是很困难的。不过，如果享有这部分手续费的人是裁判官的话，对其进行有效的规定就要容易得多了。因为一般来说，法律不能让君主遵守某种规定，却可以使审判官遵守某种规定。如果法院手续费的收取被规定得很严密，例如在诉讼的一定时期内，所有费用都交给出纳机构，等到诉讼裁决之后，再按照一定的比例分配给各裁判官，那么征收这种手续费并不会导致腐败。并且，这种手续费基本上可以足够支付全部的司法费用，而不会引起诉讼费用的明显增加。由于在案件判决结束之前，裁判官不能获得手续费，因此就更能激励所有法院人员在审理案件和判决上勤勉认真了。如果裁判官员每人分得手续费的份额，是按照他们在审理案件时所花的时间为标准的话，那么就更能激励他们勤勉了。只有按照办理公务的勤勉程度决定薪酬的多少，才能激励大家把工作做好。例如，在法国，各高等法院的手续费就是裁判官最主要的薪酬来源。按照等级和权限，土鲁斯高等法院，是法国第二大的法院。该法院的裁判官每年从议会领到的薪水，在减去所有应当扣除的部分之后，差不多只有一百五十利弗（约合英币六镑十一先令），仅相当于当地七年前一个仆役每年的普通工资。在那里，手续费的分配是按照各裁判官的勤勉程度为标准的。勤劳的裁判官，就可以得到更多的收入，虽然不是特别多，但足够他过上安乐的生活；懒惰的裁判官，就只能得到比薪水多一点的收入了。从整体上说，这些法国高等法院虽然可能不是最令人满意的法院，但是从来没有人会认为它们腐败。
最开始，英国各法院的主要收入也来源于法院收取的手续费。后来，为了审理更多的诉讼案件，各法院将那些也许本来不属于自己管辖的案件都予以受理。以仅审理刑事案件的高等法院为例，它以原告声称被告的行为犯了非法侵害罪或轻罪为由，也接受民事案件。又如，设立王室特别法院的唯一目的，本来就是为了征收国王收入、强制人们清偿对国王的债务；后来，它以原告声称被告不偿还债务，导致他不能偿还对国王的债务为由，也受理所有其他契约债务的诉讼。正是由于这种随意管辖，许多案件究竟由哪个法院审理，基本上由诉讼当事人来选择。而各法院又想多受理案件，审理时力求迅速公平。英国目前的法院制度值得人称赞的原因，很大程度上也许是因为昔日各法院法官之间的相互竞争所导致的。各个法院对所有不正当的行为，都力求在自己法院管辖的范围内给予最迅速、最公平的裁决。在英国，处理违反契约的行为，普通法院都是判决被告赔偿损失；而作为债权法院的衡平法院，一般都是先强制被告履行合同。当违反契约的行为是不交付货币时，对当事人的救济方式就是偿还货币。在这种情况下，普通法院能给予充分的救济。当一个租地人控诉他人非法夺回其租地时，他所能得到的损害赔偿决不是占有土地。在这种情况下，普通法院无法给他提供充分的救济，于是，在一段时期内，这类案件都是由衡平法院来审理的。后来，普通法院为了争取审理这类案件，发明了一种预先扣留土地的令状，这种令状对于不正当剥夺土地以及侵占土地的事件，能够提供最有效的裁决。
在受理诉讼案件时，各法院征收的印花税（手续费），不仅可以维持法官和其他工作人员的生活，还可以负担司法行政的费用，从而减轻了社会一般收入的负担。但是，在这种情况下，为了增加手续费的收入，裁判官处理案件时可能会增加一些不必要的手续。在近代欧洲，诉讼习惯是以公文页数来决定辩护人和法院书记员的薪酬。并且，当时还明确规定了每页的行数和每行的字数。因此，辩护人和法院书记员为了增加自己的报酬，经常故意增加一些啰唆的句子以增加公文页数。这样的结果就是，欧洲所有法院的公文都变得陈滥不堪。同样，诉讼的程序也发生了类似的变化。
然而，无论司法行政费用是司法部门自行解决还是由其他途径解决，行政部门都不需要肩负管理这项财产、支付薪水的责任。至于这些费用的负担，有的来源于地租，有的来源于一定数额的货币利息。当司法费用由地租负担时，法院就必须担负管理地产的责任；当司法费用由利息负担时，法院就必须负责管理货币的出借问题。例如苏格兰，巡回法院法官的一部分薪水就是由货币利息来负担的。然而，由货币利息来负担司法费用不太稳定，因此，用不稳定的财产来维持一个稳定的机构，当然是不太合理的。
最开始，由于社会进步和社会事务的增加，司法权和行政权逐渐分离。当社会事务不断增加时，司法行政也就变得日益烦琐，处理这一事务的人也就没有心力同时去关注其他的事情了。例如，处理行政事务的人，由于没有时间处理私人的诉讼案件，只好任命代理人去处理。在罗马帝国强盛时期，大执政官因为忙于政务而无法顾及司法行政，只好任命民政官来代行这种职务。罗马帝国衰落之后，在它的废墟上建立起来的欧洲各王国，他们的君主或大领主们，都视司法行政为一种过于烦琐的工作，亲自处理不免有失身份。于是，一般情况下，他们也是委任代理人或裁判官去从事这项工作。
正是由于司法权与行政权的分离，公平正义才不会被政治势力影响。肩负国家重任的人，即使有腐败的观念，有时也会为了国家的重大利益，必须牺牲个人的利益。然而，只有公平的司法行政，才能保证每个人的自由和安全。为了保障人们所有的应有权利，司法权不但要与行政权分离，而且应当完全独立于行政权。行政部门不得随意任免裁判官，行政部门的决定或经济政策的变化也不得随意影响裁判官的薪酬。
建立和维持某些公共机关和公共工程，是君主和国家的第三大任务。对整个社会来讲，这些工程都是非常有益的。由于这些机关和工程的性质特殊，个人或少数人从事的话，其所得的利润甚至不能补偿所花费的费用。因此，一般情况下都不是个人或少数人来从事这种事业。并且，在不同的社会发展时期，从事这些工程所花费的费用也不一样。
总的来说，这些公共设施和公共工程，包括前两节提到的国防和司法行政方面建立的公共设施和公共工程，以及性质与其类似的促进商业和人民教育的公共设施和工程。其中，教育上的设施又可以分为两种：一是青年教育的设施；二是各年龄人民教育的设施。对于如何妥善解决这些设施和工程所需的费用，本节将分为以下三项来进行论述。
良好的道路、桥梁、运河、港湾等公共工程，对一国的商业发展来说影响很大。在社会不同的发展时期，这些工程的建造和维持费用是有很大差别的。具体来说，国家公路的建设费和维持费是和该国土地和劳动的年产物的增加成正比的，更确切地说，公路的维持费的数额，是随着公路上运输货物的数量和重量波动的；桥梁的支持力必然要与可能通过的车辆数量和重量相适应；运河的深度和水量，也必然与可能通过的货船数量和吨数相适应；港湾的宽度，也是与可能停泊的船只数量相适应的。
很多国家的国家收入，是由行政部门来负责征收和调用的。不过，上述公共工程的维持费用，通常不需要国家收入来支付；大部分的工程，自己就能提供一项特别收入来支付其维持费用，从而不会增加国家收入的负担。以各工程的维持费为例，在多数情况下，通过对车辆、船舶征收的小额通行税，就可以弥补公路、桥梁、运河的建造费和维持费；同样的，通过对装卸货船只征收的小额港口税，也可以弥补港湾的建造费和维持费。另外，在很多国家，负责铸币的机构不但可以负担自己的维持费用，还能为君主提供一笔铸币税的收入。同样，在所有的国家，像邮政局这样的设施，不但可以维持自己的费用，还可以为君主提供一项不错的收入。
对于车辆和船舶的通行税，如果是以货物的重量或吨数为标准来缴纳的话，那么可以说，正是按照它们所带来的损耗程度支付维持费用的。这也是维持这些公共工程所采用的最公平的办法了。我们都知道，通行税是由运输者暂时支付，最后由购买货物的消费者来负担的。并且，这些公共工程降低了货物的运输费，与没有公共工程的情况相比，消费者购买货物所花费的费用要少得多（即使负担了通行税）。这是因为运输费降低对货物价格的影响程度，比通行税提高对货物价格的影响程度要大，因而货物也就更便宜。也就是说，最后纳税人由于纳税而获得的利益，是大于纳税所造成的损失的。他的纳税使他获得了更大的利益；他只不过是牺牲一小部分利益而获得其他的利益而已。可见，这种征税方式的确是最公平的了。
如果以车辆的重量为标准征收通行税的话，那么与那些不可或缺的车辆（如二轮运货马车、四轮马车）相比，对那些奢华的车辆以及四马大马车、驿递马车等征收的通行税要略高一些。这实际上就是让懒惰、虚荣的富人对穷人有所救济，从而在一定程度上降低运往国内各地的笨重货物的运费。
如果公路、桥梁、运河等的建造和维持是由需要它们