what is property-第15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！


other。　　But　what　is　the　object　of　the　war？　　Property。　　So　that　property　is　necessarily　accompanied　by　war　upon　property。　　The　liberty　and　security　of　the　rich　do　not　suffer　from　the　liberty　and　security　of　the　poor；　far　from　that；　they　mutually　strengthen　and　sustain　each　other。　　The　rich　man's　right　of　property；　on　the　contrary；　has　to　be　continually　defended　against　the　poor　man's　desire　for　property。　　What　a　contradiction！　　In　England　they　have　a　poor…rate：　they　wish　me　to　pay　this　tax。　　But　what　relation　exists　between　my　natural　and　inalienable　right　of　property　and　the　hunger　from　which　ten　million　wretched　people　are　suffering？　　When　religion　commands　us　to　assist　our　fellows；　it　speaks　in　the　name　of　charity；　not　in　the　name　of　law。　　The　obligation　of　benevolence；　imposed　upon　me　by　Christian　morality；　cannot　be　imposed　upon　me　as　a　political　tax　for　the　benefit　of　any　person　or　poor…house。　　I　will　give　alms　when　I　see　fit　to　do　so；　when　the　sufferings　of　others　excite　in　me　that　sympathy　of　which　philosophers　talk；　and　in　which　I　do　not　believe：　I　will　not　be　forced　to　bestow　them。　　No　one　is　obliged　to　do　more　than　comply　with　this　injunction：　　IN　THE　EXERCISE　OF　YOUR　OWN　RIGHTS　DO　NOT　ENCROACH　UPON　THE　RIGHTS　OF　ANOTHER；　an　injunction　which　is　the　exact　definition　of　liberty。　　Now；　my　possessions　are　my　own；　no　one　has　a　claim　upon　them：　I　object　to　the　placing　of　the　third　theological　virtue　in　the　order　of　the　day。

Everybody；　in　France；　demands　the　conversion　of　the　five　per　cent。　bonds；　they　demand　thereby　the　complete　sacrifice　of　one　species　of　property。　　They　have　the　right　to　do　it；　if　public　necessity　requires　it；　but　where　is　the　just　indemnity　promised　by　the　charter？　　Not　only　does　none　exist；　but　this　indemnity　is　not　even　possible；　for；　if　the　indemnity　were　equal　to　the　property　sacrificed；　the　conversion　would　be　useless。

The　State　occupies　the　same　position　to…day　toward　the　bondholders　that　the　city　of　Calais　did；　when　besieged　by　Edward　III；　toward　its　notables。　　The　English　conqueror　consented　to　spare　its　inhabitants；　provided　it　would　surrender　to　him　its　most　distinguished　citizens　to　do　with　as　he　pleased。　　Eustache　and　several　others　offered　themselves；　it　was　noble　in　them；　and　our　ministers　should　recommend　their　example　to　the　bondholders。　　But　had　the　city　the　right　to　surrender　them？　　Assuredly　not。　　The　right　to　security　is　absolute；　the　country　can　require　no　one　to　sacrifice　himself。　　The　soldier　standing　guard　within　the　enemy's　range　is　no　exception　to　this　rule。　　Wherever　a　citizen　stands　guard；　the　country　stands　guard　with　him：　to…day　it　is　the　turn　of　the　one；　to…morrow　of　the　other。　　When　danger　and　devotion　are　common；　flight　is　parricide。　　No　one　has　the　right　to　flee　from　danger；　no　one　can　serve　as　a　scapegoat。　　The　maxim　of　CaiaphasIT　IS　RIGHT　THAT　A　MAN　SHOULD　DIE　FOR　HIS　NATIONis　that　of　the　populace　and　of　tyrants；　the　two　extremes　of　social　degradation。

It　is　said　that　all　perpetual　annuities　are　essentially　redeemable。　　This　maxim　of　civil　law；　applied　to　the　State；　is　good　for　those　who　wish　to　return　to　the　natural　equality　of　labor　and　wealth；　but；　from　the　point　of　view　of　the　proprietor；　and　in　the　mouth　of　conversionists；　it　is　the　language　of　bankrupts。　　The　State　is　not　only　a　borrower；　it　is　an　insurer　and　guardian　of　property；　granting　the　best　of　security；　it　assures　the　most　inviolable　possession。　　How；　then；　can　it　force　open　the　hands　of　its　creditors；　who　have　confidence　in　it；　and　then　talk　to　them　of　public　order　and　security　of　property？　　The　State；　in　such　an　operation；　is　not　a　debtor　who　discharges　his　debt；　it　is　a　stock…company　which　allures　its　stockholders　into　a　trap；　and　there；　contrary　to　its　authentic　promise；　exacts　from　them　twenty；　thirty；　or　forty　per　cent。　of　the　interest　on　their　capital。

That　is　not　all。　　The　State　is　a　university　of　citizens　joined　together　under　a　common　law　by　an　act　of　society。　　This　act　secures　all　in　the　possession　of　their　property；　guarantees　to　one　his　field；　to　another　his　vineyard；　to　a　third　his　rents；　and　to　the　bondholder；　who　might　have　bought　real　estate　but　who　preferred　to　come　to　the　assistance　of　the　treasury；　his　bonds。　　The　State　cannot　demand；　without　offering　an　equivalent；　the　sacrifice　of　an　acre　of　the　field　or　a　corner　of　the　vineyard；　still　less　can　it　lower　rents：　why　should　it　have　the　right　to　diminish　the　interest　on　bonds？　　This　right　could　not　justly　exist；　unless　the　bondholder　could　invest　his　funds　elsewhere　to　equal　advantage；　but　being　confined　to　the　State；　where　can　he　find　a　place　to　invest　them；　since　the　cause　of　conversion；　that　is；　the　power　to　borrow　to　better　advantage；　lies　in　the　State？　　That　is　why　a　government；　based　on　the　principle　of　property；　cannot　redeem　its　annuities　without　the　consent　of　their　holders。

The　money　deposited　with　the　republic　is　property　which　it　has　no　right　to　touch　while　other　kinds　of　property　are　respected；　to　force　their　redemption　is　to　violate　the　social　contract；　and　outlaw　the　bondholders。

The　whole　controversy　as　to　the　conversion　of　bonds　finally　reduces　itself　to　this：

QUESTION。　　Is　it　just　to　reduce　to　misery　forty…five　thousand　families　who　derive　an　income　from　their　bonds　of　one　hundred　francs　or　less？

ANSWER。　　Is　it　just　to　compel　seven　or　eight　millions　of　tax…　payers　to　pay　a　tax　of　five　francs；　when　they　should　pay　only　three？　　It　is　clear；　in　the　first　place；　that　the　reply　is　in　reality　no　reply；　but；　to　make　the　wrong　more　apparent；　let　us　change　it　thus：　Is　it　just　to　endanger　the　lives　of　one　hundred　thousand　men；　when　we　can　save　them　by　surrendering　one　hundred　heads　to　the　enemy？　　Reader；　decide！

All　this　is　clearly　understood　by　the　defenders　of　the　present　system。　　Yet；　nevertheless；　sooner　or　later；　the　conversion　will　be　effected　and　property　be　violated；　because　no　other　course　is　possible；　because　property；　regarded　as　a　right；　and　not　being　a　right；　must　of　right　perish；　because　the　force　of　events；　the　laws　of　conscience；　and　physical　and　mathematical　necessity　must；　in　the　end；　destroy　this　illusion　of　our　minds。

To　sum　up：　liberty　is　an　absolute　right；　because　it　is　to　man　what　impenetrability　is　to　matter；a　sine　qua　non　of　existence；　equality　is　an　absolute　right；　because　without　equality　there　is　no　society；　security　is　an　absolute　right；　because　in　the　eyes　of　every　man　his　own　liberty　and　life　are　as　precious　as　another's。　　These　three　rights　are　absolute；　that　is；　susceptible　of　neither　increase　nor　diminution；　because　in　society　each　associate　receives　as　much　as　he　gives；liberty　for　liberty；　equality　for　equality；　security　for　security；　body　for　body；　soul　for　soul；　in　life　and　in　death。

But　property；　in　its　derivative　sense；　and　by　the　definitions　of　law；　is　a　right　outside　of　society；　for　it　is　clear　that；　if　the　wealth　of　each　was　social　wealth；　the　conditions　would　be　equal　for　all；　and　it　would　be　a　contradiction　to　say：　　PROPERTY　IS　A　MAN'S　RIGHT　TO　DISPOSE　AT　WILL　OF　SOCIAL　PROPERTY。　　Then　if　we　are　associated　for　the　sake　of　liberty；　equality；　and　security；　we　are　not　associated　for　the　sake　of　property；　then　if　property　is　a　NATURAL　right；　this　natural　right　is　not　SOCIAL；　but　ANTI…SOCIAL。　　Property　and　society　are　utterly　irreconcilable　institutions。　　It　is　as　impossible　to　associate　two　proprietors　as　to　join　two　magnets　by　their　opposite　poles。　　Either　society　must　perish；　or　it　must　destroy　property。

If　property　is　a　natural；　absolute；　imprescriptible；　and　inalienable　right；　why；　in　all　ages；　has　there　been　so　much　speculation　as　to　its　origin？for　this　is　one　of　its　distinguishing　characteristics。　　The　origin　of　a　natural　right！　　Good　God！　who　ever　inquired　into　the　origin　of　the　rights　of　liberty；　security；　or　equality？　　They　exist　by　the　same　right　that　we　exist；　they　are　born　with　us；　they　live　and　die　with　us。　　With　property　it　is　very　different；　indeed。　　By　law；　property　can　exist　without　a　proprietor；　like　a　quality　without　a　subject。　　It　exists　for　the　human　being　who　as　yet　is　not；　and　for　the　octogenarian　who　is　no　more。　　And　yet；　in　spite　of　these　wonderful　prerogatives　which　savor　of　the　eternal　and　the　infinite；　they　have　never　found　the　origin　of　property；　the　doctors　still　disagree。　　On　one　point　only　are　they　in　harmony：　namely；　that　the　validity　of　the　right　of　property　depends　upon　the　authenticity　of　its　origin。　　But　this　harmony　is　their　condemnation。　　Why　have　they　acknowledged　the　right　before　settling　the　question　of　origin？

Certain　classes　do　not　relish　investigation　into　the　pretended　titles　to　property；　and　its　fabulous　and　perhaps　scandalous　history。　　They　wish　to　hold　to　this　proposition：　that　property　is　a　fact；　that　it　always　has　been；　and　always　will　be。　　With　that　proposition　the　savant　Proudhon＇1＇　commenced　his　〃Treatise　on　the　Right　of　Usufruct；〃　regarding　the　origin　of　property　as　a　useless　question。　　Perhaps　I　would　subscribe　to　this　doctrine；　believing　it　inspired　by　a　commendable　love　of　peace；　were　all　my　fellow…citizens　in　comfortable　circumstances；　but；　no！　　I　will　not　subscribe　to　it。

＇1＇　The　Proudhon　here　referred　to　is　J。　B。　V。　Proudhon；　a　distinguished　French　jurist；　and　distant　relative　of　the　Translator。




The　titles　on　which　they　pretend　to　base　the　right　of　property　are　two　in　number：　OCCUPATION　and　LABOR。　　I　shall　examine　them　successively；　under　all　their　aspects　and　in　detail；　and　I　remind　the　reader　that；　to　whatever　authority　we　appeal；　I　shall　prove　beyond　a　doubt　that　property；　to　be　just　and　possible；　must　necessarily　have　equality　for　its　condition。


％　2。Occupation；　as　the　Title　to　Property。

It　is　remarkable　that；　at　those　meetings　of　the　State　Council　at　which　the　Code　was　discussed；　no　controversy　arose　as　to　the　origin　and　principle　of　property。　　All　the　articles　of　Vol。　　II。；　Book　2；　concerning　property　and　the　right　of　accession；　were　passed　without　opposition　or　amendment。　　Bonaparte；　who　on　other　questions　had　given　his　legists　so　much　trouble；　had　nothing　to　say　about　property。　　Be　not　surprised　at　it：　in　the　eyes　of　that　man；　the　most　selfish　and　wilful　person　that　ever　lived；　property　was　the　first　of　rights；　just　as　submission　to　authority　was　the　most　holy　of　duties。

The　right　of　OCCUPATION；　or　of　the　FIRST　OCCUPANT；　is　that　which　results　from　the　actual；　physical；　real　possession　of　a　thing。　　I　occupy　a　piece　of　land；　the　presumption　is；　that　I　am　the　proprietor；　until　the　contrary　is　proved。　　We　know　that　originally　such　a　right　cannot　be　legitimate　unless　it　is　reciprocal；　the　jurists　say　as　much。

Cicero　compares　the　earth　to　a　vast　theatre：　　_Quemadmodum　theatrum　cum　commune　sit；　recte　tamen　dici　potest　ejus　esse　eum　locum　quem　quisque　occuparit_。

This　passage　is　all　that　ancient　philosophy　has　to　say　about　the　origin　of　property。

The　theatre；　says　Cicero；　is　common　to　all；　nevertheless；　the　place　that　each　one　occupies　is　called　HIS　OWN；　that　is；　it　is　a　place　POSSESSED；　not　a　place　APPROPRIATED。　　This　comparison　annihilates　property；　moreover；　it　implies　equality。　　Can　I；　in　a　theatre；　occupy　at　the　same　time　one　place　in　the　pit；　another　in　the　boxes；　and　a　third　in　the　gallery？　　Not　unless　I　have　three　bodies；　like　Geryon；　or　can　exist　in　different　places　at　th