what is property-第16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！


in　the　gallery？　　Not　unless　I　have　three　bodies；　like　Geryon；　or　can　exist　in　different　places　at　the　same　time；　as　is　related　of　the　magician　Apollonius。

According　to　Cicero；　no　one　has　a　right　to　more　than　he　needs：　such　is　the　true　interpretation　of　his　famous　axiom　_suum　quidque　cujusque　sit_；　to　each　one　that　which　belongs　to　himan　axiom　that　has　been　strangely　applied。　　That　which　belongs　to　each　is　not　that　which　each　MAY　possess；　but　that　which　each　HAS　A　RIGHT　to　possess。　　Now；　what　have　we　a　right　to　possess？　　That　which　is　required　for　our　labor　and　consumption；　Cicero's　comparison　of　the　earth　to　a　theatre　proves　it。　　According　to　that；　each　one　may　take　what　place　he　will；　may　beautify　and　adorn　it；　if　he　can；　it　is　allowable：　but　he　must　never　allow　himself　to　overstep　the　limit　which　separates　him　from　another。　　The　doctrine　of　Cicero　leads　directly　to　equality；　for；　occupation　being　pure　toleration；　if　the　toleration　is　mutual　（and　it　cannot　be　otherwise）　the　possessions　are　equal。

Grotius　rushes　into　history；　but　what　kind　of　reasoning　is　that　which　seeks　the　origin　of　a　right；　said　to　be　natural；　elsewhere　than　in　Nature？　　This　is　the　method　of　the　ancients：　the　fact　exists；　then　it　is　necessary；　then　it　is　just；　then　its　antecedents　are　just　also。　　Nevertheless；　let　us　look　into　it。

〃Originally；　all　things　were　common　and　undivided；　they　were　the　property　of　all。〃　　Let　us　go　no　farther。　　Grotius　tells　us　how　this　original　communism　came　to　an　end　through　ambition　and　cupidity；　how　the　age　of　gold　was　followed　by　the　age　of　iron；　&c。　　So　that　property　rested　first　on　war　and　conquest；　then　on　treaties　and　agreements。　　But　either　these　treaties　and　agreements　distributed　wealth　equally；　as　did　the　original　communism　（the　only　method　of　distribution　with　which　the　barbarians　were　acquainted；　and　the　only　form　of　justice　of　which　they　could　conceive；　and　then　the　question　of　origin　assumes　this　form：　how　did　equality　afterwards　disappear？）or　else　these　treaties　and　agreements　were　forced　by　the　strong　upon　the　weak；　and　in　that　case　they　are　null；　the　tacit　consent　of　posterity　does　not　make　them　valid；　and　we　live　in　a　permanent　condition　of　iniquity　and　fraud。

We　never　can　conceive　how　the　equality　of　conditions；　having　once　existed；　could　afterwards　have　passed　away。　　What　was　the　cause　of　such　degeneration？　　The　instincts　of　the　animals　are　unchangeable；　as　well　as　the　differences　of　species；　to　suppose　original　equality　in　human　society　is　to　admit　by　implication　that　the　present　inequality　is　a　degeneration　from　the　nature　of　this　society；a　thing　which　the　defenders　of　property　cannot　explain。　　But　I　infer　therefrom　that；　if　Providence　placed　the　first　human　beings　in　a　condition　of　equality；　it　was　an　indication　of　its　desires；　a　model　that　it　wished　them　to　realize　in　other　forms；　just　as　the　religious　sentiment；　which　it　planted　in　their　hearts；　has　developed　and　manifested　itself　in　various　ways。　　Man　has　but　one　nature；　constant　and　unalterable：　he　pursues　it　through　instinct；　he　wanders　from　it　through　reflection；　he　returns　to　it　through　judgment；　who　shall　say　that　we　are　not　returning　now？　　According　to　Grotius；　man　has　abandoned　equality；　according　to　me；　he　will　yet　return　to　it。　　How　came　he　to　abandon　it？　　Why　will　he　return　to　it？　　These　are　questions　for　future　consideration。

Reid　writes　as　follows：


〃The　right　of　property　is　not　innate；　but　acquired。　　It　is　not　grounded　upon　the　constitution　of　man；　but　upon　his　actions。　　Writers　on　jurisprudence　have　explained　its　origin　in　a　manner　that　may　satisfy　every　man　of　common　understanding。

〃The　earth　is　given　to　men　in　common　for　the　purposes　of　life；　by　the　bounty　of　Heaven。　　But　to　divide　it；　and　appropriate　one　part　of　its　produce　to　one；　another　part　to　another；　must　be　the　work　of　men　who　have　power　and　understanding　given　them；　by　which　every　man　may　accommodate　himself；　WITHOUT　HURT　TO　ANY　OTHER。

〃This　common　right　of　every　man　to　what　the　earth　produces；　before　it　be　occupied　and　appropriated　by　others；　was；　by　ancient　moralists；　very　properly　compared　to　the　right　which　every　citizen　had　to　the　public　theatre；　where　every　man　that　came　might　occupy　an　empty　seat；　and　thereby　acquire　a　right　to　it　while　the　entertainment　lasted；　but　no　man　had　a　right　to　dispossess　another。

〃The　earth　is　a　great　theatre；　furnished　by　the　Almighty；　with　perfect　wisdom　and　goodness；　for　the　entertainment　and　employment　of　all　mankind。　　Here　every　man　has　a　right　to　accommodate　himself　as　a　spectator；　and　to　perform　his　part　as　an　actor；　but　without　hurt　to　others。〃


Consequences　of　Reid's　doctrine。

1。　　That　the　portion　which　each　one　appropriates　may　wrong　no　one；　it　must　be　equal　to　the　quotient　of　the　total　amount　of　property　to　be　shared；　divided　by　the　number　of　those　who　are　to　share　it；

2。　　The　number　of　places　being　of　necessity　equal　at　all　times　to　that　of　the　spectators；　no　spectator　can　occupy　two　places；　nor　can　any　actor　play　several　parts；

3。　　Whenever　a　spectator　comes　in　or　goes　out；　the　places　of　all　contract　or　enlarge　correspondingly：　for；　says　Reid；　〃THE　RIGHT　OF　PROPERTY　IS　NOT　INNATE；　BUT　ACQUIRED；〃　consequently；　it　is　not　absolute；　consequently；　the　occupancy　on　which　it　is　based；　being　a　conditional　fact；　cannot　endow　this　right　with　a　stability　which　it　does　not　possess　itself。　　This　seems　to　have　been　the　thought　of　the　Edinburgh　professor　when　he　added：


〃A　right　to　life　implies　a　right　to　the　necessary　means　of　life；　and　that　justice；　which　forbids　the　taking　away　the　life　of　an　innocent　man；　forbids　no　less　the　taking　from　him　the　necessary　means　of　life。　　He　has　the　same　right　to　defend　the　one　as　the　other。　　To　hinder　another　man's　innocent　labor；　or　to　deprive　him　of　the　fruit　of　it；　is　an　injustice　of　the　same　kind；　and　has　the　same　effect　as　to　put　him　in　fetters　or　in　prison；　and　is　equally　a　just　object　of　resentment。〃


Thus　the　chief　of　the　Scotch　school；　without　considering　at　all　the　inequality　of　skill　or　labor；　posits　a　priori　the　equality　of　the　means　of　labor；　abandoning　thereafter　to　each　laborer　the　care　of　his　own　person；　after　the　eternal　axiom：　　WHOSO　DOES　WELL；　SHALL　FARE　WELL。

The　philosopher　Reid　is　lacking；　not　in　knowledge　of　the　principle；　but　in　courage　to　pursue　it　to　its　ultimate。　　If　the　right　of　life　is　equal；　the　right　of　labor　is　equal；　and　so　is　the　right　of　occupancy。　　Would　it　not　be　criminal；　were　some　islanders　to　repulse；　in　the　name　of　property；　the　unfortunate　victims　of　a　shipwreck　struggling　to　reach　the　shore？　　The　very　idea　of　such　cruelty　sickens　the　imagination。　　The　proprietor；　like　Robinson　Crusoe　on　his　island；　wards　off　with　pike　and　musket　the　proletaire　washed　overboard　by　the　wave　of　civilization；　and　seeking　to　gain　a　foothold　upon　the　rocks　of　property。　　〃Give　me　work！〃　cries　he　with　all　his　might　to　the　proprietor：　〃don't　drive　me　away；　I　will　work　for　you　at　any　price。〃　　〃I　do　not　need　your　services；〃　replies　the　proprietor；　showing　the　end　of　his　pike　or　the　barrel　of　his　gun。　　〃Lower　my　rent　at　least。〃　　〃I　need　my　income　to　live　upon。〃　　〃How　can　I　pay　you；　when　I　can　get　no　work？〃　　〃That　is　your　business。〃　　Then　the　unfortunate　proletaire　abandons　himself　to　the　waves；　or；　if　he　attempts　to　land　upon　the　shore　of　property；　the　proprietor　takes　aim；　and　kills　him。

We　have　just　listened　to　a　spiritualist；　we　will　now　question　a　materialist；　then　an　eclectic：　and　having　completed　the　circle　of　philosophy；　we　will　turn　next　to　law。

According　to　Destutt　de　Tracy；　property　is　a　necessity　of　our　nature。　　That　this　necessity　involves　unpleasant　consequences；　it　would　be　folly　to　deny。　　But　these　consequences　are　necessary　evils　which　do　not　invalidate　the　principle；　so　that　it　as　unreasonable　to　rebel　against　property　on　account　of　the　abuses　which　it　generates；　as　to　complain　of　life　because　it　is　sure　to　end　in　death。　　This　brutal　and　pitiless　philosophy　promises　at　least　frank　and　close　reasoning。　　Let　us　see　if　it　keeps　its　promise。


〃We　talk　very　gravely　about　the　conditions　of　property；　。　。　。　as　if　it　was　our　province　to　decide　what　constitutes　property。　。　。　。　　It　would　seem；　to　hear　certain　philosophers　and　legislators；　that　at　a　certain　moment；　spontaneously　and　without　cause；　people　began　to　use　the　words　THINE　and　MINE；　and　that　they　might　have；　or　ought　to　have；　dispensed　with　them。　　But　THINE　and　MINE　were　never　invented。〃


A　philosopher　yourself；　you　are　too　realistic。　　THINE　and　MINE　do　not　necessarily　refer　to　self；　as　they　do　when　I　say　your　philosophy；　and　my　equality；　for　your　philosophy　is　you　philosophizing；　and　my　equality　is　I　professing　equality。　　THINE　and　MINE　oftener　indicate　a　relation；YOUR　country；　YOUR　parish；　YOUR　tailor；　YOUR　milkmaid；　MY　chamber；　MY　seat　at　the　theatre；　MY　company　and　MY　battalion　in　the　National　Guard。　　In　the　former　sense；　we　may　sometimes　say　MY　labor；　MY　skill；　MY　virtue；　never　MY　grandeur　nor　MY　majesty：　in　the　latter　sense　only；　MY　field；　MY　house；　MY　vineyard；　MY　capital；precisely　as　the　banker's　clerk　says　MY　cash…box。　　In　short；　THINE　and　MINE　are　signs　and　expressions　of　personal；　but　equal；　rights；　applied　to　things　outside　of　us；　they　indicate　possession；　function；　use；　not　property。

It　does　not　seem　possible；　but；　nevertheless；　I　shall　prove；　by　quotations；　that　the　whole　theory　of　our　author　is　based　upon　this　paltry　equivocation。


〃Prior　to　all　covenants；　men　are；　not　exactly；　as　Hobbes　says；　in　a　state　of　HOSTILITY；　but　of　ESTRANGEMENT。　　In　this　state；　justice　and　injustice　are　unknown；　the　rights　of　one　bear　no　relation　to　the　rights　of　another。　　All　have　as　many　rights　as　needs；　and　all　feel　it　their　duty　to　satisfy　those　needs　by　any　means　at　their　command。〃


Grant　it；　whether　true　or　false；　it　matters　not。　　Destutt　de　Tracy　cannot　escape　equality。　　On　this　theory；　men；　while　in　　a　state　of　ESTRANGEMENT；　are　under　no　obligations　to　each　other；　they　all　have　the　right　to　satisfy　their　needs　without　regard　to　the　needs　of　others；　and　consequently　the　right　to　exercise　their　power　over　Nature；　each　according　to　his　strength　and　ability。　　That　involves　the　greatest　inequality　of　wealth。　　Inequality　of　conditions；　then；　is　the　characteristic　feature　of　estrangement　or　barbarism：　the　exact　opposite　of　Rousseau's　idea。

But　let　us　look　farther：


〃Restrictions　of　these　rights　and　this　duty　commence　at　the　time　when　covenants；　either　implied　or　expressed；　are　agreed　upon。　　Then　appears　for　the　first　time　justice　and　injustice；　that　is；　the　balance　between　the　rights　of　one　and　the　rights　of　another；　which　up　to　that　time　were　necessarily　equal。〃

Listen：　RIGHTS　WERE　EQUAL；　that　means　that　each　individual　had　the　right　to　SATISFY　HIS　NEEDS　WITHOUT　REFERENCE　TO　THE　NEEDS　OF　OTHERS。　　In　other　words；　that　all　had　the　right　to　injure　each　other；　that　there　was　no　right　save　force　and　cunning。　　They　injured　each　other；　not　only　by　war　and　pillage；　but　also　by　usurpation　and　appropriation。　　Now；　in　order　to　abolish　this　equal　right　to　use　force　and　stratagem；this　equal　right　to　do　evil；　the　sole　source　of　the　inequality　of　benefits　and　injuries；they　commenced　to　make　COVENANTS　EITHER　IMPLIED　OR　EXPRESSED；　and　established　a　balance。　　Then　these　agreements　and　this