19 War
Bastiat asserts that it is universal for the major part of man's physical and intellectual activities are devoted directly or indirectly to creating their means of subsistence. Aside of those directly involved in professions that produce food, clothing, and shelter are many supporting professions that make tools, transport supplies, and perform other supporting operations to these professions.
(EN: Of interest is that it is only in the past half-century or so that this has changed in developed nations, where textiles, agriculture, and the like have decreased to occupy a small amount of the labor force and the great majority of people are devoted to non-survival goods, i.e. luxuries and comforts.)
Scholars, the clergy, and politicians are meanwhile little interested in such things. They are not only detached from, but contemptuous of, the "vulgar and pedestrian" priorities of the common man. The great wars of all of history have been fought over things of very little importance - ideology, vanity, and a desire for power and wealth beyond what is necessary. There never has been a war undertaken out of a need for food or clothing.
Skirmishes among villages and tribes may be over survival goods, as primitive tribes required a great deal of territory, but even then it is suggested that they are because of some unusual circumstance such as natural disaster or a sudden growth of population. Plunder during time of war in the author's time (EN: and to the modern day) was a side-effect rather than the motivation for declaring war.
In the ancient world, war was fought out of narcissism. After that, war was fought for religious intolerance. And in the author's day, wars were fought for wealth - control of resources and trade routes being the common objectives, and generally those that are not involved in obtaining survival goods, but things of negligible importance and the greed of the leisure class.
Politics, historically, was the brutish behavior of men who wished to live without working - to dominate and oppress others and seize the product of their work. This greed was not for necessities, but for luxury and prestige. They butchered and enslaved men for palaces, fashionable garments, and other sensual pleasures - or for the simple pleasure of being praised, obeyed, or agreed with.
A few other non-economic causes of warfare: patriotism and religious fervor. It is excessive pride that leads one man or one nation to attack others it feels are inferior, and the same excessive pride that leads others not merely to defend, but to counterattack with equal ferocity. Much evil and very little good has come of inspiring people with such sentiments.
There's a brief and indirect rebuttal to arguments about colonialism. Some suggest that wealthier nations exploit poorer ones, and relegate them to the most toilsome work. That is, the "mother" country predates upon colonies by compelling them to agricultural labor to produce raw materials for the consumption of others.
This is a matter of perspective, and overlooks much. Primarily, the agricultural work done in colonies is an often an improvement in their economy and in the welfare of their people. Neither does the mother country loot the colonies (except by taxation in some instances), but trades. In this sense the colonial farmer is no more "enslaved" than a domestic one - he produces goods for trade, and receives fair value in return.
(EN: What is swept under the rug here is that the colonial farmer was generally not a native of the colony, but a citizen of the mother country. The land "discovered" by Europeans and allotted to their own citizens was generally taken by force from the indigenous population. This is history today, but very real at the time the book was written.)
Another basic observation is that man shuns pain and suffering, and the tedium of unpleasant tasks qualifies as a low-grade suffering. Under normal circumstances it leads him to seek to leverage technology to make his work easier. But it also leads him to shirk efforts he would be well advised to undertake for long-term benefit. And it also leads him to see force or fraud as an easier way to get what he desires from others rather than producing it for himself.
He considers, momentarily, the Protestant fascination with toil, as they do seem to praise the idea of working hard at onerous tasks. In the positive sense, this encourages man to support himself through his effort rather than to seek to steal from others. In the negative sense, it discourages him from being truly productive by seeking to reduce the effort necessary to produce what he needs.
Back to the topic of war: it is generally a mechanism of plunder. Whether a nation seeks to loot the wealth of another, or to loot the capital of another, or to gain an advantage in trade that it cannot win by fair effort.
The problem with plunder, as with theft, is that it is not a sustainable practice. The thief who steals consumes what he has stolen and has no capacity to replenish his supply except to steal more. He must always count on others to produce something so that he may take it. As such, he is likened to a parasite who is incapable of surviving without a host.
Threat of war or theft cause productive men to seek to secure their wealth and capital. The thief steals because it is easier than producing for himself - defenses against theft increase the effort the thief must undertake to steal, to the point that thieving is no longer cheaper than producing. (EN: And this is not entirely dissuasive. I have witnessed that people will argue for hours to avoid a few minutes' work - which is foolish, but not uncommon.)
Unfortunately, this burdens the producer (hence the consumer) with the cost of security. This is the reason that thieves are a menace not only to their victims, but to all of society, and the reason that the costs of war are not merely in fighting battles but in maintaining defensive capabilities should they be needed. It is all a drain on production and a detriment to the welfare of all.