Book I, Chapter III: The Right Of The Strongest
"THE strongest man is never strong enough to be always master, unless he transforms his power into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest—a right apparently assumed in irony, and really established in principle. But will this phrase never be explained to us? Force is a physical power ; I do not see what morality can result from its effects. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will; it is at most an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?
Let us assume for a moment this pretended right. I say that nothing results from it but inexplicable nonsense ; for if force constitutes right, the effect changes with the cause, and any force which overcomes the first succeeds to its rights. As soon as men can disobey with impunity, they may do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always in the right, the only thing is to act in such a way that one may be the strongest. But what sort of a right is it that perishes when force ceases? If it is necessary to obey by compulsion, there is no need to obey from duty ; and if men are no longer forced to obey, obligation is at anend. We see, then, that this word wight adds nothing to force; it here means nothing at all.
Obey the powers that be. If that means, Vield to force, the precept is good but superfluous ; I reply that it will never be violated. All power comes from God," I admit; but every disease comes from him too; does it follow that we are prohibited from calling in a physician ? Ifa brigand should surprise me in the recesses of a wood, am I bound not only to give up my purse when forced, but am I also morally bound to do so when I might conceal it? For, in effect, the pistol which he holds is a superior force.
Let us agree, then, that might does not make right, and that we are bound to obey none but lawful authorities. Thus my original question ever recurs.