what is property-第14章

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　as　a　park：　do　these　things　constitute　abuse；　or　not？　　In　the　matter　of　property；　use　and　abuse　are　necessarily　indistinguishable。

According　to　the　Declaration　of　Rights；　published　as　a　preface　to　the　Constitution　of　'93；　property　is　〃the　right　to　enjoy　and　dispose　at　will　of　one's　goods；　one's　income；　and　the　fruit　of　one's　labor　and　industry。〃

Code　Napoleon；　article　544：　　〃Property　is　the　right　to　enjoy　and　dispose　of　things　in　the　most　absolute　manner；　provided　we　do　not　overstep　the　limits　prescribed　by　the　laws　and　regulations。〃

These　two　definitions　do　not　differ　from　that　of　the　Roman　law：　all　give　the　proprietor　an　absolute　right　over　a　thing；　and　as　for　the　restriction　imposed　by　the　code；PROVIDED　WE　DO　NOT　OVERSTEP　THE　LIMITS　PRESCRIBED　BY　THE　LAWS　AND　REGULATIONS；its　object　is　not　to　limit　property；　but　to　prevent　the　domain　of　one　proprietor　from　interfering　with　that　of　another。　　That　is　a　confirmation　of　the　principle；　not　a　limitation　of　it。

There　are　different　kinds　of　property：　　1。　Property　pure　and　simple；　the　dominant　and　seigniorial　power　over　a　thing；　or；　as　they　term　it；　NAKED　PROPERTY。　　2。　POSSESSION。　　〃Possession；〃　says　Duranton；　〃is　a　matter　of　fact；　not　of　right。〃　　Toullier：　　〃Property　is　a　right；　a　legal　power；　possession　is　a　fact。〃　　The　tenant；　the　farmer；　the　commandite'；　the　usufructuary；　are　possessors；　the　owner　who　lets　and　lends　for　use；　the　heir　who　is　to　come　into　possession　on　the　death　of　a　usufructuary；　are　proprietors。　　If　I　may　venture　the　comparison：　a　lover　is　a　possessor；　a　husband　is　a　proprietor。

This　double　definition　of　propertydomain　and　possession　is　of　the　highest　importance；　and　it　must　be　clearly　understood；　in　order　to　comprehend　what　is　to　follow。

From　the　distinction　between　possession　and　property　arise　two　sorts　of　rights：　the　jus　in　re；　the　right　in　a　thing；　the　right　by　which　I　may　reclaim　the　property　which　I　have　acquired；　in　whatever　hands　I　find　it；　and　the　jus　ad　rem；　the　right　TO　a　thing；　which　gives　me　a　claim　to　become　a　proprietor。　　Thus　the　right　of　the　partners　to　a　marriage　over　each　other's　person　is　the　jus　in　re；　that　of　two　who　are　betrothed　is　only　the　jus　ad　rem。　　In　the　first；　possession　and　property　are　united；　the　second　includes　only　naked　property。　　With　me　who；　as　a　laborer；　have　a　right　to　the　possession　of　the　products　of　Nature　and　my　own　industry；and　who；　as　a　proletaire；　enjoy　none　of　them；it　is　by　virtue　of　the　jus　ad　rem　that　I　demand　admittance　to　the　jus　in　re。

This　distinction　between　the　jus　in　re　and　the　jus　ad　rem　is　the　basis　of　the　famous　distinction　between　possessoire　and　petitoire；actual　categories　of　jurisprudence；　the　whole　of　which　is　included　within　their　vast　boundaries。　　Petitoire　refers　to　every　thing　relating　to　property；　possessoire　to　that　relating　to　possession。　　In　writing　this　memoir　against　property；　I　bring　against　universal　society　an　action　petitoire：　　I　prove　that　those　who　do　not　possess　to…day　are　proprietors　by　the　same　title　as　those　who　do　possess；　but；　instead　of　inferring　therefrom　that　property　should　be　shared　by　all；　I　demand；　in　the　name　of　general　security；　its　entire　abolition。　　If　I　fail　to　win　my　case；　there　is　nothing　left　for　us　（the　proletarian　class　and　myself）　but　to　cut　our　throats：　we　can　ask　nothing　more　from　the　justice　of　nations；　for；　as　the　code　of　procedure　（art　26）　tells　us　in　its　energetic　style；　THE　PLAINTIFF　WHO　HAS　BEEN　NON…SUITED　IN　AN　ACTION　PETITOIRE；　IS　DEBARRED　THEREBY　FROM　BRINGING　AN　ACTION　POSSESSOIRE。　　If；　on　the　contrary；　I　gain　the　case；　we　must　then　commence　an　action　possessoire；　that　we　may　be　reinstated　in　the　enjoyment　of　the　wealth　of　which　we　are　deprived　by　property。　　I　hope　that　we　shall　not　be　forced　to　that　extremity；　but　these　two　actions　cannot　be　prosecuted　at　once；　such　a　course　being　prohibited　by　the　same　code　of　procedure。

Before　going　to　the　heart　of　the　question；　it　will　not　be　useless　to　offer　a　few　preliminary　remarks。

％　1。Property　as　a　Natural　Right。

The　Declaration　of　Rights　has　placed　property　in　its　list　of　the　natural　and　inalienable　rights　of　man；　four　in　all：　LIBERTY；　EQUALITY；　PROPERTY；　SECURITY。　　What　rule　did　the　legislators　of　'93　follow　in　compiling　this　list？　　None。　　They　laid　down　principles；　just　as　they　discussed　sovereignty　and　the　laws；　from　a　general　point　of　view；　and　according　to　their　own　opinion。　　They　did　every　thing　in　their　own　blind　way。

If　we　can　believe　Toullier：　　〃The　absolute　rights　can　be　reduced　to　three：　SECURITY；　LIBERTY；　PROPERTY。〃　　Equality　is　eliminated　by　the　Rennes　professor；　why？　　Is　it　because　LIBERTY　implies　it；　or　because　property　prohibits　it？　　On　this　point　the　author　of　〃Droit　Civil　Explique〃　is　silent：　it　has　not　even　occurred　to　him　that　the　matter　is　under　discussion。

Nevertheless；　if　we　compare　these　three　or　four　rights　with　each　other；　we　find　that　property　bears　no　resemblance　whatever　to　the　others；　that　for　the　majority　of　citizens　it　exists　only　potentially；　and　as　a　dormant　faculty　without　exercise；　that　for　the　others；　who　do　enjoy　it；　it　is　susceptible　of　certain　transactions　and　modifications　which　do　not　harmonize　with　the　idea　of　a　natural　right；　that；　in　practice；　governments；　tribunals；　and　laws　do　not　respect　it；　and　finally　that　everybody；　spontaneously　and　with　one　voice；　regards　it　as　chimerical。

Liberty　is　inviolable。　　I　can　neither　sell　nor　alienate　my　liberty；　every　contract；　every　condition　of　a　contract；　which　has　in　view　the　alienation　or　suspension　of　liberty；　is　null：　the　slave；　when　he　plants　his　foot　upon　the　soil　of　liberty；　at　that　moment　becomes　a　free　man。　　When　society　seizes　a　malefactor　and　deprives　him　of　his　liberty；　it　is　a　case　of　legitimate　defence：　whoever　violates　the　social　compact　by　the　commission　of　a　crime　declares　himself　a　public　enemy；　in　attacking　the　liberty　of　others；　he　compels　them　to　take　away　his　own。　　Liberty　is　the　original　condition　of　man；　to　renounce　liberty　is　to　renounce　the　nature　of　man：　after　that；　how　could　we　perform　the　acts　of　man？

Likewise；　equality　before　the　law　suffers　neither　restriction　nor　exception。　　All　Frenchmen　are　equally　eligible　to　office：　consequently；　in　the　presence　of　this　equality；　condition　and　family　have；　in　many　cases；　no　influence　upon　choice。　　The　poorest　citizen　can　obtain　judgment　in　the　courts　against　one　occupying　the　most　exalted　station。　　Let　the　millionaire；　Ahab；　build　a　chateau　upon　the　vineyard　of　Naboth：　the　court　will　have　the　power；　according　to　the　circumstances；　to　order　the　destruction　of　the　chateau；　though　it　has　cost　millions；　and　to　force　the　trespasser　to　restore　the　vineyard　to　its　original　state；　and　pay　the　damages。　　The　law　wishes　all　property；　that　has　been　legitimately　acquired；　to　be　kept　inviolate　without　regard　to　value；　and　without　respect　for　persons。

The　charter　demands；　it　is　true；　for　the　exercise　of　certain　political　rights；　certain　conditions　of　fortune　and　capacity；　but　all　publicists　know　that　the　legislator's　intention　was　not　to　establish　a　privilege；　but　to　take　security。　　Provided　the　conditions　fixed　by　law　are　complied　with；　every　citizen　may　be　an　elector；　and　every　elector　eligible。　　The　right；　once　acquired；　is　the　same　for　all；　the　law　compares　neither　persons　nor　votes。　　I　do　not　ask　now　whether　this　system　is　the　best；　it　is　enough　that；　in　the　opinion　of　the　charter　and　in　the　eyes　of　every　one；　equality　before　the　law　is　absolute；　and；　like　liberty；　admits　of　no　compromise。

It　is　the　same　with　the　right　of　security。　　Society　promises　its　members　no　half…way　protection；　no　sham　defence；　it　binds　itself　to　them　as　they　bind　themselves　to　it。　　It　does　not　say　to　them；　〃I　will　shield　you；　provided　it　costs　me　nothing；　I　will　protect　you；　if　I　run　no　risks　thereby。〃　　It　says；　〃I　will　defend　you　against　everybody；　I　will　save　and　avenge　you；　or　perish　myself。〃

The　whole　strength　of　the　State　is　at　the　service　of　each　citizen；　the　obligation　which　binds　them　together　is　absolute。

How　different　with　property！　　Worshipped　by　all；　it　is　acknowledged　by　none：　laws；　morals；　customs；　public　and　private　conscience；　all　plot　its　death　and　ruin。

To　meet　the　expenses　of　government；　which　has　armies　to　support；　tasks　to　perform；　and　officers　to　pay；　taxes　are　needed。　　Let　all　contribute　to　these　expenses：　nothing　more　just。　　But　why　should　the　rich　pay　more　than　the　poor？　　That　is　just；　they　say；　because　they　possess　more。　　I　confess　that　such　justice　is　beyond　my　comprehension。

Why　are　taxes　paid？　　To　protect　all　in　the　exercise　of　their　natural　rightsliberty；　equality；　security；　and　property；　to　maintain　order　in　the　State；　to　furnish　the　public　with　useful　and　pleasant　conveniences。

Now；　does　it　cost　more　to　defend　the　rich　man's　life　and　liberty　than　the　poor　man's？　　Who；　in　time　of　invasion；　famine；　or　plague；　causes　more　trouble；the　large　proprietor　who　escapes　the　evil　without　the　assistance　of　the　State；　or　the　laborer　who　sits　in　his　cottage　unprotected　from　danger？

Is　public　order　endangered　more　by　the　worthy　citizen；　or　by　the　artisan　and　journeyman？　　Why；　the　police　have　more　to　fear　from　a　few　hundred　laborers；　out　of　work；　than　from　two　hundred　thousand　electors！

Does　the　man　of　large　income　appreciate　more　keenly　than　the　poor　man　national　festivities；　clean　streets；　and　beautiful　monuments？

Why；　he　prefers　his　country…seat　to　all　the　popular　pleasures；　and　when　he　wants　to　enjoy　himself；　he　does　not　wait　for　the　greased　pole！

One　of　two　things　is　true：　either　the　proportional　tax　affords　greater　security　to　the　larger　tax…payers；　or　else　it　is　a　wrong。

Because；　if　property　is　a　natural　right；　as　the　Declaration　of　'93　declares；　all　that　belongs　to　me　by　virtue　of　this　right　is　as　sacred　as　my　person；　it　is　my　blood；　my　life；　myself：　whoever　touches　it　offends　the　apple　of　my　eye。　　My　income　of　one　hundred　thousand　francs　is　as　inviolable　as　the　grisette's　daily　wage　of　seventy…five　centimes；　her　attic　is　no　more　sacred　than　my　suite　of　apartments。　　The　tax　is　not　levied　in　proportion　to　strength；　size；　or　skill：　no　more　should　it　be　levied　in　proportion　to　property。

If；　then；　the　State　takes　more　from　me；　let　it　give　me　more　in　return；　or　cease　to　talk　of　equality　of　rights；　for　otherwise；　society　is　established；　not　to　defend　property；　but　to　destroy　it。　　The　State；　through　the　proportional　tax；　becomes　the　chief　of　robbers；　the　State　sets　the　example　of　systematic　pillage：　the　State　should　be　brought　to　the　bar　of　justice　at　the　head　of　those　hideous　brigands；　that　execrable　mob　which　it　now　kills　from　motives　of　professional　jealousy。

But；　they　say；　the　courts　and　the　police　force　are　established　to　restrain　this　mob；　government　is　a　company；　not　exactly　for　insurance；　for　it　does　not　insure；　but　for　vengeance　and　repression。　　The　premium　which　this　company　exacts；　the　tax；　is　divided　in　proportion　to　property；　that　is；　in　proportion　to　the　trouble　which　each　piece　of　property　occasions　the　avengers　and　repressers　paid　by　the　government。

This　is　any　thing　but　the　absolute　and　inalienable　right　of　property。　　Under　this　system　the　poor　and　the　rich　distrust；　and　make　war　upon；　each　other。　　But　what　is　the　object　of　the　war？　　Property。　　So　that　property　is　necessarily　accompanied　b