deliberately dispensed with thought altogether； and has deliberately kept his whole book all of a
piece with its lack of thought。 For in this way he has eliminated the confusion and disorder which
lessen the force of an exposition where the accidental is treated along with hints of the substantial；
where the purely empirical and external are mixed with a reminiscence of the universal and
rational； and where in the midst of wretched inanities the reader is now and again reminded of the
loftier sphere of the infinite。 For the same reason again his exposition is consistent。 He takes as the
essence of the state； not what is substantive but the sphere of accident； and consistency in dealing
with a sphere of that kind amounts to the complete inconsistency of utter thoughtlessness which
jogs along without looking behind； and is just as much at home now with the exact opposite of
what it approved a moment ago。
Addition： The state in and by itself is the ethical whole； the actualisation of freedom； and it is an
absolute end of reason that freedom should be actual。 The state is mind on earth and consciously
realising itself there。 In nature； on the other hand； mind actualises itself only as its own other； as
mind asleep。 Only when it is present in consciousness； when it knows itself as a really existent
object； is it the state。 In considering freedom； the starting…point must be not individuality； the single
self…consciousness； but only the essence of self…consciousness； for whether man knows it or not；
this essence is externally realised as a self…subsistent power in which single individuals are only
moments。 The march of God in the world； that is what the state is。 The basis of the state is the
power of reason actualising itself as will。 In considering the Idea of the state； we must not have our
eyes on particular states or on particular institutions。 Instead we must consider the Idea； this actual
God； by itself。 On some principle or other； any state may be shown to be bad； this or that defect
may be found in it； and yet； at any rate if one of the mature states of our epoch is in question； it has
in it the moments essential to the existence of the state。 But since it is easier to find defects than to
understand the affirmative； we may readily fall into the mistake of looking at isolated aspects of the
state and so forgetting its inward organic life。 The state is no ideal work of art； it stands on earth
and so in the sphere of caprice； chance； and error； and bad behaviour may disfigure it in many
respects。 But the ugliest of men； or a criminal； or an invalid； or a cripple； is still always a living man。
The affirmative； life； subsists despite his defects； and it is this affirmative factor which is our theme
here。
Footnote： I have described the book sufficiently to show that it is of an original kind。 There might be
something noble in the author's indignation by itself； since it was kindled by the false theories； mentioned
above； emanating principally from Rousseau； and especially by the attempt to realise them in practice。 But to
save himself from these theories； Herr von Haller has gone to the other extreme by dispensing with thought
altogether and consequently it cannot be said that there is anything of intrinsic value in his virulent hatred of
all laws and legislation； of all expressly and legally determinate rights。 The hatred of law； of right made
determinate in law； is the shibboleth whereby fanaticism； flabby…mindedness； and the hypocrisy of good
intentions are clearly and infallibly recognised for what they are； disguise themselves as they may。
Originality like Herr von Haller's is always a curious phenomenon； and for those of my readers who are not yet
acquainted with his book I will quote a few specimen passages。 This is how he lays down his most important
basic proposition： 'Just as； in the inorganic world； the greater dislodges the less and the mighty the weak 。。。。 so
in the animal kingdom； and then amongst human beings； the same law appears in nobler' （often； too； surely in
ignobler？） 'forms'； and 'this； therefore； is the eternal； unalterable； ordinance of God； that the mightier rules； must
rule； and will always rule'。 It is clear enough from this； let alone from what follows； in what sense 'might' is taken
here。 It is not the might of justice and ethics； but only the irrational power of brute force。 Herr von Haller then
goes on to support this doctrine on various grounds； amongst them that 'nature with amazing wisdom has so
ordered it that the mere sense of personal superiority irresistibly ennobles the character and encourages the
development of just those virtues which are most necessary for dealing with subordinates'。 He asks with a
great elaboration of undergraduate rhetoric ＇ibid。＇ 'whether it is the strong or the weak in the kingdom of
science who more misuse their trust and their authority in order to achieve their petty selfish ends and the ruin
of the credulous； whether to be a past master in legal learning is not to be a pettifogger； a leguleius； one who
cheats the hopes of unsuspecting clients； who makes white black and black white； who misapplies the law and
makes it a vehicle for wrongdoing； who brings to beggary those who need his assistance and tends them as
the hungry vulture tends the innocent lamb'； &c。； &c。 Herr von Haller forgets here that the point of this rhetoric
is to support his proposition that the rule of the mightier is an everlasting ordnance of God； so presumably it is
by the same ordinance that the vulture rends the innocent lamb； and that hence the mighty are quite right to
treat their unsuspecting clients as the weak and to make use of knowledge of the law to empty their pockets。 It
would be too much； however； to ask that two thoughts should be put together where there is really not a single
one。
It goes without saying that Herr von Haller is an enemy of codes of law。 In his view； the laws of the land； are
on the one hand； in principle 'unnecessary； because they spring self…explanatory from the laws of nature'。 If
men had remained satisfied with 'self…explanatory' as the basis of their thinking； then they would have been
spared the endless labour devoted； since ever there were states； to legislation and legal codes； and which is
still devoted thereto and to the study of positive law。 'On the other hand； laws are not exactly promulgated for
private individuals； but as instructions to puisne judges； acquainting them with the will of the high court'。
Apart from that； the provision of law…courts is and all over the place） not a state duty； but a favour； help
rendered by the authorities； and 'quite supererogatory'； it is not the most perfect method of guaranteeing men's
rights； on the contrary； it is an insecure and uncertain method； 'the only one left to us by our modern lawyers。
They have reft us of the other three methods； of just those which lead most swiftly and surely to the goal；
those which； unlike law…courts；； friendly nature has given to man for the safeguarding of his rightful freedom'。
And these three methods are … what do you suppose？ … （1） Personal acceptance and inculcation of the law of
nature； （2） Resistance to wrong； （3） Flight； when there is no other remedy'。 Lawyers are unfriendly indeed； it
appears； in comparison with the friendliness of nature！ 'But the natural； divine； law； given to everyone by
nature the all…bountiful； is： Honour everyone as thine equal' （on the author's principles this should read
'Honour not the man who is thine equal； but the one who is mightier'）； 'hurt no man who hurts thee not；
demand from him nothing but what he owes' （but what does he owe？）； 'nay more； love thy neighbour and serve
him when thou canst'。 The 'implanting of this law' is to make a legislator and a constitution superfluous。 It
would be curious to see how Herr von Haller makes it intelligible why legislators and constitutions have
appeared in the world despite this 'implanting'。
In vol。 iii； the author comes to the 'so…called national liberties'； by which he means the laws and constitutions of
nation states。 Every legally constituted right is in this wide sense of the word a 'liberty'。 Of these laws he says；
inter alia； that 'their content is usually very insignificant； although in books a high value may be placed on
documentary liberties of that kind'。 When we then realise that the author is speaking here of the national
liberties of the German Estates； of the English people （e。g。 Magna Carta which is little read； and on account of
its archaic phraseology still less understood'； the Bill of Rights； and so forth）； of the people of Hungary； &c。；
we are surprised to find that these Possessions； formerly so highly prized； are only insignificant； and no less
Surprised to learn that it is only in books that these nations place a value on laws whose co…operation has
entered into every coat that is worn Ind every crust that is eaten； and still enters into every day and hour of the
lives of everyone。
To carry quotation further； Herr von Haller speaks particularly； ill of the Prussian General Legal Code； because
of the 'incredible' influence on it of the errors of false philosophy （though in this instan