[p. 473]
|473| that this union does not merely have the intention of defending itself, but that it, let the power and the success be what they may, defends itself through actual defence. For no one will be able to deny that Germany is united for its common defence according to laws and words; but we cannot here distinguish between laws and words on the one hand and deed and actuality on the other [side], nor say that Germany, though not in deed and actuality, yet according to laws and words defends itself in common. For property and its defence by a union of the state are things that relate wholly and entirely to reality, and what has only their ideality is anything but a state.
Plans and theories lay claim to reality insofar as they are practicable, but their value is the same whether they are in actuality or not; a theory of the state, on the other hand, is called state and constitution only insofar as it is actual. If Germany pretended to be a state and constitution, although the forms of these are without life, their theory without actuality, it would be uttering an untruth; if, however, it really promised common defence in words, one would have to ascribe to it the frailty of age, which, although it can no longer, still has a will, or dishonesty, which does not keep what it has promised.
For a multitude to form a state it is necessary that it form a common defence and public power. The manner, however, in which the particular effects and sides of the union that flow from this are present, or the particular constitution, is a matter of indifference for the multitude’s forming a power. What belongs to this particular manner and way can be present in a highly manifold way, and in a determinate state itself a complete lack of rule and unevenness may prevail in this respect, and we must in our consideration separate the two
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.