what is property-第22部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


n　one's　estate；a　right　which　seemed　to　them　equitable；　because　it　was　common；involves　the　right　to　transfer；　sell；　give；　gain；　and　lose　it；　that　it　tends；　consequently；　to　nothing　less　than　the　destruction　of　that　equality　which　they　established　it　to　maintain。　　And　though　they　should　have　foreseen　it；　they　disregarded　it；　the　present　want　occupied　their　whole　attention；　and；　as　ordinarily　happens　in　such　cases；　the　disadvantages　were　at　first　scarcely　perceptible；　and　they　passed　unnoticed。

They　did　not　foresee；　these　ingenuous　legislators；　that　if　property　is　retainable　by　intent　alone_nudo　animo_it　carries　with　it　the　right　to　let；　to　lease；　to　loan　at　interest；　to　profit　by　exchange；　to　settle　annuities；　and　to　levy　a　tax　on　a　field　which　intent　reserves；　while　the　body　is　busy　elsewhere。

They　did　not　foresee；　these　fathers　of　our　jurisprudence；　that；　if　the　right　of　inheritance　is　any　thing　other　than　Nature's　method　of　preserving　equality　of　wealth；　families　will　soon　become　victims　of　the　most　disastrous　exclusions；　and　society；　pierced　to　the　heart　by　one　of　its　most　sacred　principles；　will　come　to　its　death　through　opulence　and　misery。＇1＇

＇1＇　Here；　especially；　the　simplicity　of　our　ancestors　appears　in　all　its　rudeness。　　After　having　made　first　cousins　heirs；　where　there　were　no　legitimate　children；　they　could　not　so　divide　the　property　between　two　different　branches　as　to　prevent　the　simultaneous　existence　of　extreme　wealth　and　extreme　poverty　in　the　same　family。　　For　example：

James；　dying；　leaves　two　sons；　Peter　and　John；　heirs　of　his　fortune：　James's　property　is　divided　equally　between　them。　　But　Peter　has　only　one　daughter；　while　John；　his　brother；　leaves　six　sons。　　It　is　clear　that；　to　be　true　to　the　principle　of　equality；　and　at　the　same　time　to　that　of　heredity；　the　two　estates　must　be　divided　in　seven　equal　portions　among　the　children　of　Peter　and　John；　for　otherwise　a　stranger　might　marry　Peter's　daughter；　and　by　this　alliance　half　of　the　property　of　James；　the　grandfather；　would　be　transferred　to　another　family；　which　is　contrary　to　the　principle　of　heredity。　　Furthermore；　John's　children　would　be　poor　on　account　of　their　number；　while　their　cousin；　being　an　only　child；　would　be　rich；　which　is　contrary　to　the　principle　of　equality。　　If　we　extend　this　combined　application　of　two　principles　apparently　opposed　to　each　other；　we　shall　become　convinced　that　the　right　of　succession；　which　is　assailed　with　so　little　wisdom　in　our　day；　is　no　obstacle　to　the　maintenance　of　equality。

Under　whatever　form　of　government　we　live；　it　can　always　be　said　that　_le　mort　saisit　le　vif；_　that　is；　that　inheritance　and　succession　will　last　for　ever；　whoever　may　be　the　recognized　heir。　　But　the　St。　Simonians　wish　the　heir　to　be　designated　by　the　magistrate；　others　wish　him　to　be　chosen　by　the　deceased；　or　assumed　by　the　law　to　be　so　chosen：　the　essential　point　is　that　Nature's　wish　be　satisfied；　so　far　as　the　law　of　equality　allows。

To…day　the　real　controller　of　inheritance　is　chance　or　caprice；　now；　in　matters　of　legislation；　chance　and　caprice　cannot　be　accepted　as　guides。　　It　is　for　the　purpose　of　avoiding　the　manifold　disturbances　which　follow　in　the　wake　of　chance　that　Nature；　after　having　created　us　equal；　suggests　to　us　the　principle　of　heredity；　which　serves　as　a　voice　by　which　society　asks　us　to　choose；　from　among　all　our　brothers；　him　whom　we　judge　best　fitted　to　complete　our　unfinished　work。




They　did　not　foresee。　。　。　。　　But　why　need　I　go　farther？

The　consequences　are　plain　enough；　and　this　is　not　the　time　to　criticise　the　whole　Code。

The　history　of　property　among　the　ancient　nations　is；　then；　simply　a　matter　of　research　and　curiosity。　　It　is　a　rule　of　jurisprudence　that　the　fact　does　not　substantiate　the　right。　　Now；　property　is　no　exception　to　this　rule：　then　the　universal　recognition　of　the　right　of　property　does　not　legitimate　the　right　of　property。　　Man　is　mistaken　as　to　the　constitution　of　society；　the　nature　of　right；　and　the　application　of　justice；　just　as　he　was　mistaken　regarding　the　cause　of　meteors　and　the　movement　of　the　heavenly　bodies。　　His　old　opinions　cannot　be　taken　for　articles　of　faith。　　Of　what　consequence　is　it　to　us　that　the　Indian　race　was　divided　into　four　classes；　that；　on　the　banks　of　the　Nile　and　the　Ganges；　blood　and　position　formerly　determined　the　distribution　of　the　land；　that　the　Greeks　and　Romans　placed　property　under　the　protection　of　the　gods；　that　they　accompanied　with　religious　ceremonies　the　work　of　partitioning　the　land　and　appraising　their　goods？　　The　variety　of　the　forms　of　privilege　does　not　sanction　injustice。　　The　faith　of　Jupiter；　the　proprietor；＇1＇　proves　no　more　against　the　equality　of　citizens；　than　do　the　mysteries　of　Venus；　the　wanton；　against　conjugal　chastity。

＇1＇　_Zeus　klesios_。




The　authority　of　the　human　race　is　of　no　effect　as　evidence　in　favor　of　the　right　of　property；　because　this　right；　resting　of　necessity　upon　equality；　contradicts　its　principle；　the　decision　of　the　religions　which　have　sanctioned　it　is　of　no　effect；　because　in　all　ages　the　priest　has　submitted　to　the　prince；　and　the　gods　have　always　spoken　as　the　politicians　desired；　the　social　advantages；　attributed　to　property；　cannot　be　cited　in　its　behalf；　because　they　all　spring　from　the　principle　of　equality　of　possession。

What　means；　then；　this　dithyramb　upon　property？


〃The　right　of　property　is　the　most　important　of　human　institutions。〃　。　。　。


Yes；　as　monarchy　is　the　most　glorious。


〃The　original　cause　of　man's　prosperity　upon　earth。〃


Because　justice　was　supposed　to　be　its　principle。


〃Property　became　the　legitimate　end　of　his　ambition；　the　hope　of　his　existence；　the　shelter　of　his　family；　in　a　word；　the　corner…　stone　of　the　domestic　dwelling；　of　communities；　and　of　the　political　State。〃


Possession　alone　produced　all　that。


〃Eternal　principle；〃


Property　is　eternal；　like　every　negation；


〃Of　all　social　and　civil　institutions。〃


For　that　reason；　every　institution　and　every　law　based　on　property　will　perish。


〃It　is　a　boon　as　precious　as　liberty。〃


For　the　rich　proprietor。


〃In　fact；　the　cause　of　the　cultivation　of　the　habitable　earth。〃

If　the　cultivator　ceased　to　be　a　tenant；　would　the　land　be　worse　cared　for？


〃The　guarantee　and　the　morality　of　labor。〃


Under　the　regime　of　property；　labor　is　not　a　condition；　but　a　privilege。


〃The　application　of　justice。〃


What　is　justice　without　equality　of　fortunes？　　A　balance　with　false　weights。


〃All　morality；〃


A　famished　stomach　knows　no　morality；


〃All　public　order；〃


Certainly；　the　preservation　of　property；

〃Rest　on　the　right　of　property。〃＇1＇

＇1　Giraud；　〃Investigations　into　the　Right　of　Property　among　the　Romans。〃





Corner…stone　of　all　which　is；　stumbling…block　of　all　which　ought　to　be；such　is　property。


To　sum　up　and　conclude：

Not　only　does　occupation　lead　to　equality；　it　PREVENTS　property。　　For；　since　every　man；　from　the　fact　of　his　existence；　has　the　right　of　occupation；　and；　in　order　to　live；　must　have　material　for　cultivation　on　which　he　may　labor；　and　since；　on　the　other　hand；　the　number　of　occupants　varies　continually　with　the　births　and　deaths；it　follows　that　the　quantity　of　material　which　each　laborer　may　claim　varies　with　the　number　of　occupants；　consequently；　that　occupation　is　always　subordinate　to　population。　　Finally；　that；　inasmuch　as　possession；　in　right；　can　never　remain　fixed；　it　is　impossible；　in　fact；　that　it　can　ever　become　property。

Every　occupant　is；　then；　necessarily　a　possessor　or　usufructuary；a　function　which　excludes　proprietorship。　　Now；　this　is　the　right　of　the　usufructuary：　he　is　responsible　for　the　thing　entrusted　to　him；　he　must　use　it　in　conformity　with　general　utility；　with　a　view　to　its　preservation　and　development；　he　has　no　power　to　transform　it；　to　diminish　it；　or　to　change　its　nature；　he　cannot　so　divide　the　usufruct　that　another　shall　perform　the　labor　while　he　receives　the　product。　　In　a　word；　the　usufructuary　is　under　the　supervision　of　society；　submitted　to　the　condition　of　labor　and　the　law　of　equality。

Thus　is　annihilated　the　Roman　definition　of　propertyTHE　RIGHT　OF　USE　AND　ABUSEan　immorality　born　of　violence；　the　most　monstrous　pretension　that　the　civil　laws　ever　sanctioned。　　Man　receives　his　usufruct　from　the　hands　of　society；　which　alone　is　the　permanent　possessor。　　The　individual　passes　away；　society　is　deathless。

What　a　profound　disgust　fills　my　soul　while　discussing　such　simple　truths　！　Do　we　doubt　these　things　to…day？　　Will　it　be　necessary　to　again　take　arms　for　their　triumph？　　And　can　force；　in　default　of　reason；　alone　introduce　them　into　our　laws？

ALL　HAVE　AN　EQUAL　RIGHT　OF　OCCUPANCY。

THE　AMOUNT　OCCUPIED　BEING　MEASURED；　NOT　BY　THE　WILL；　BUT　BY　THE　VARIABLE　CONDITIONS　OF　SPACE　AND　NUMBER；　PROPERTY　CANNOT　EXIST。

This　no　code　has　ever　expressed；　this　no　constitution　can　admit！　　These　are　axioms　which　the　civil　law　and　the　law　of　nations　deny！　。　。　。　。　。

But　I　hear　the　exclamations　of　the　partisans　of　another　system：　　〃Labor；　labor！　that　is　the　basis　of　property！〃

Reader；　do　not　be　deceived。　　This　new　basis　of　property　is　worse　than　the　first；　and　I　shall　soon　have　to　ask　your　pardon　for　having　demonstrated　things　clearer；　and　refuted　pretensions　more　unjust；　than　any　which　we　have　yet　considered。



CHAPTER　III。　LABOR　AS　THE　EFFICIENT　CAUSE　OF　THE　DOMAIN　OF　PROPERTY。

Nearly　all　the　modern　writers　on　jurisprudence；　taking　their　cue　from　the　economists；　have　abandoned　the　theory　of　first　occupancy　as　a　too　dangerous　one；　and　have　adopted　that　which　regards　property　as　born　of　labor。　　In　this　they　are　deluded；　they　reason　in　a　circle。　　To　labor　it　is　necessary　to　occupy；　says　M。　Cousin。

Consequently；　I　have　added　in　my　turn；　all　having　an　equal　right　of　occupancy；　to　labor　it　is　necessary　to　submit　to　equality。　　〃The　rich；〃　exclaims　Jean　Jacques；　〃have　the　arrogance　to　say；　‘I　built　this　wall；　I　earned　this　land　by　my　labor。'　　Who　set　you　the　tasks？　we　may　reply；　and　by　what　right　do　you　demand　payment　from　us　for　labor　which　we　did　not　impose　upon　you？〃　　All　sophistry　falls　to　the　ground　in　the　presence　of　this　argument。

But　the　partisans