To counteract the evil which arises from the tendency man has to transgress his proper limits, and the discord produced by such unjust encroachment on the rights of others, is the essential object of the creation of the State. If it were the same in these cases, as with the physical ills of nature, or with the working of that moral evil which disturbs the natural order of things through excessive enjoyment or privation, or through other actions inconsistent with that order—then such unions would no longer be necessary. The physical evil would be encountered by the unaided efforts of human courage, skill, and foresight; the moral, by the wisdom which is matured in experience; and with either, in any case, the removal of the evil would end the struggle. Therefore, any ultimate, absolute authority, such as uniquely distinguishes the concept of the State, would be wholly unneeded. But, as it is, human disputes are utterly different, and make absolutely necessary at all times the existence of some such supreme power. For in these dissensions one conflict springs immediately from another. Wrong begets revenge; and revenge is a new wrong. And hence it becomes necessary to look for some species of revenge which does not admit of any further revenge—that is the punishment inflicted by the State—or for a settlement of the controversy which the parties are obliged to accept, namely, a judicial decision.