what is property-第35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！


　can　neither　consume　nor　exchange　them？　　Then　farm…rent；　with　them　as　with　the　rest　of　the　laborers；　is　a　waste；　and　perishes　in　their　hands。　　Extend　the　hypothesis；　increase　the　number　and　variety　of　the　products；　you　still　have　the　same　result。

Hitherto；　we　have　considered　the　proprietor　as　taking　part　in　the　production；　not　only　（as　Say　says）　by　the　use　of　his　instrument；　but　in　an　effective　manner　and　by　the　labor　of　his　hands。　　Now；　it　is　easy　to　see　that；　under　such　circumstances；　property　will　never　exist。　　What　happens？

The　proprietoran　essentially　libidinous　animal；　without　virtue　or　shameis　not　satisfied　with　an　orderly　and　disciplined　life。　　He　loves　property；　because　it　enables　him　to　do　at　leisure　what　he　pleases　and　when　he　pleases。　　Having　obtained　the　means　of　life；　he　gives　himself　up　to　trivialities　and　indolence；　he　enjoys；　he　fritters　away　his　time；　he　goes　in　quest　of　curiosities　and　novel　sensations。　　Propertyto　enjoy　itselfhas　to　abandon　ordinary　life；　and　busy　itself　in　luxurious　occupations　and　unclean　enjoyments。

Instead　of　giving　up　a　farm…rent；　which　is　perishing　in　their　hands；　and　thus　lightening　the　labor　of　the　community；　our　hundred　proprietors　prefer　to　rest。　　In　consequence　of　this　withdrawal；the　absolute　production　being　diminished　by　one　hundred；　while　the　consumption　remains　the　same；production　and　consumption　seem　to　balance。　　But；　in　the　first　place；　since　the　proprietors　no　longer　labor；　their　consumption　is；　according　to　economical　principles；　unproductive；　consequently；　the　previous　condition　of　the　communitywhen　the　labor　of　one　hundred　was　rewarded　by　no　productsis　superseded　by　one　in　which　the　products　of　one　hundred　are　consumed　without　labor。　　The　deficit　is　always　the　same；　whichever　the　column　of　the　account　in　which　it　is　expressed。　　Either　the　maxims　of　political　economy　are　false；　or　else　property；　which　contradicts　them；　is　impossible。

The　economistsregarding　all　unproductive　consumption　as　an　evil；　as　a　robbery　of　the　human　racenever　fail　to　exhort　proprietors　to　moderation；　labor；　and　economy；　they　preach　to　them　the　necessity　of　making　themselves　useful；　of　remunerating　production　for　that　which　they　receive　from　it；　they　launch　the　most　terrible　curses　against　luxury　and　laziness。　　Very　beautiful　morality；　surely；　it　is　a　pity　that　it　lacks　common　sense。　　The　proprietor　who　labors；　or；　as　the　economists　say；　WHO　MAKES　HIMSELF　USEFUL；　is　paid　for　this　labor　and　utility；　is　he；　therefore；　any　the　less　idle　as　concerns　the　property　which　he　does　not　use；　and　from　which　he　receives　an　income？　　His　condition；　whatever　he　may　do；　is　an　unproductive　and　FELONIOUS　one；　he　cannot　cease　to　waste　and　destroy　without　ceasing　to　be　a　proprietor。

But　this　is　only　the　least　of　the　evils　which　property　engenders。

Society　has　to　maintain　some　idle　people；　whether　or　no。　　It　will　always　have　the　blind；　the　maimed；　the　insane；　and　the　idiotic。　　It　can　easily　support　a　few　sluggards。　　At　this　point；　the　impossibilities　thicken　and　become　complicated。


THIRD　PROPOSITION。

Property　is　impossible；　because；　with　a　given　capital；　Production　is　proportional　to　labor；　not　to　property。


To　pay　a　farm…rent　of　one　hundred　at　the　rate　of　ten　per　cent。　of　the　product；　the　product　must　be　one　thousand；　that　the　product　may　be　one　thousand；　a　force　of　one　thousand　laborers　is　needed。　　It　follows；　that　in　granting　a　furlough；　as　we　have　just　done；　to　our　one　hundred　laborer…proprietors；　all　of　whom　had　an　equal　right　to　lead　the　life　of　men　of　income；we　have　placed　ourselves　in　a　position　where　we　are　unable　to　pay　their　revenues。　　In　fact；　the　productive　power；　which　at　first　was　one　thousand；　being　now　but　nine　hundred；　the　production　is　also　reduced　to　nine　hundred；　one…tenth　of　which　is　ninety。　　Either；　then；　ten　proprietors　out　of　the　one　hundred　cannot　be　paid；　provided　the　remaining　ninety　are　to　get　the　whole　amount　of　their　farm…rent；or　else　all　must　consent　to　a　decrease　of　ten　per　cent。　　For　it　is　not　for　the　laborer；　who　has　been　wanting　in　no　particular；　who　has　produced　as　in　the　past；　to　suffer　by　the　withdrawal　of　the　proprietor。　　The　latter　must　take　the　consequences　of　his　own　idleness。　　But；　then；　the　proprietor　becomes　poorer　for　the　very　reason　that　he　wishes　to　enjoy；　by　exercising　his　right；　he　loses　it；　so　that　property　seems　to　decrease　and　vanish　in　proportion　as　we　try　to　lay　hold　of　it；　the　more　we　pursue　it；　the　more　it　eludes　our　grasp。　　What　sort　of　a　right　is　that　which　is　governed　by　numerical　relations；　and　which　an　arithmetical　calculation　can　destroy？

The　laborer…proprietor　received；　first；　as　laborer；　0。9　in　wages；　second；　as　proprietor；　1　in　farm…rent。　　He　said　to　himself；　〃My　farm…rent　is　sufficient；　I　have　enough　and　to　spare　without　my　labor。〃　　And　thus　it　is　that　the　income　upon　which　he　calculated　gets　diminished　by　one…tenth；he　at　the　same　time　not　even　suspecting　the　cause　of　this　diminution。　　By　taking　part　in　the　production；　he　was　himself　the　creator　of　this　tenth　which　has　vanished；　and　while　he　thought　to　labor　only　for　himself；　he　unwittingly　suffered　a　loss　in　exchanging　his　products；　by　which　he　was　made　to　pay　to　himself　one…tenth　of　his　own　farm…rent。　　Like　every　one　else；　he　produced　1；　and　received　but　0。9

If；　instead　of　nine　hundred　laborers；　there　had　been　but　five　hundred；　the　whole　amount　of　farm…rent　would　have　been　reduced　to　fifty；　if　there　had　been　but　one　hundred；　it　would　have　fallen　to　ten。　　We　may　posit；　then；　the　following　axiom　as　a　law　of　proprietary　economy：　　INCREASE　MUST　DIMINISH　AS　THE　NUMBER　OF　IDLERS　AUGMENTS。

_　　_This　first　result　will　lead　us　to　another　more　surprising　still。　　Its　effect　is　to　deliver　us　at　one　blow　from　all　the　evils　of　property；　without　abolishing　it；　without　wronging　proprietors；　and　by　a　highly　conservative　process。

We　have　just　proved　that；　if　the　farm…rent　in　a　community　of　one　thousand　laborers　is　one　hundred；　that　of　nine　hundred　would　be　ninety；　that　of　eight　hundred；　eighty；　that　of　one　hundred；　ten；　&c。　　So　that；　in　a　community　where　there　was　but　one　laborer；　the　farm…rent　would　be　but　0。1；　no　matter　how　great　the　extent　and　value　of　the　land　appropriated。　　Therefore；　WITH　A　GIVEN　LANDED　CAPITAL；　PRODUCTION　IS　PROPORTIONAL　TO　LABOR；　NOT　TO　PROPERTY。

Guided　by　this　principle；　let　us　try　to　ascertain　the　maximum　increase　of　all　property　whatever。

What　is；　essentially；　a　farm…lease？　　It　is　a　contract　by　which　the　proprietor　yields　to　a　tenant　possession　of　his　land；　in　consideration　of　a　portion　of　that　which　it　yields　him；　the　proprietor。　　If；　in　consequence　of　an　increase　in　his　household；　the　tenant　becomes　ten　times　as　strong　as　the　proprietor；　he　will　produce　ten　times　as　much。　　Would　the　proprietor　in　such　a　case　be　justified　in　raising　the　farm…rent　tenfold？　　His　right　is　not；　The　more　you　produce；　the　more　I　demand。　　It　is；　The　more　I　sacrifice；　the　more　I　demand。　　The　increase　in　the　tenant's　household；　the　number　of　hands　at　his　disposal；　the　resources　of　his　industry；all　these　serve　to　increase　production；　but　bear　no　relation　to　the　proprietor。　　His　claims　are　to　be　measured　by　his　own　productive　capacity；　not　that　of　others。　　Property　is　the　right　of　increase；　not　a　poll…tax。　　How　could　a　man；　hardly　capable　of　cultivating　even　a　few　acres　by　himself；　demand　of　a　community；　on　the　ground　of　its　use　of　ten　thousand　acres　of　his　property；　ten　thousand　times　as　much　as　he　is　incapable　of　producing　from　one　acre？　　Why　should　the　price　of　a　loan　be　governed　by　the　skill　and　strength　of　the　borrower；　rather　than　by　the　utility　sacrificed　by　the　proprietor？　　We　must　recognize；　then；　this　second　economical　law：　　INCREASE　IS　MEASURED　BY　A　FRACTION　OF　THE　PROPRIETORS　PRODUCTION。

Now；　this　production；　what　is　it？　　In　other　words；　What　can　the　lord　and　master　of　a　piece　of　land　justly　claim　to　have　sacrificed　in　lending　it　to　a　tenant？

The　productive　capacity　of　a　proprietor；　like　that　of　any　laborer；　being　one；　the　product　which　he　sacrifices　in　surrendering　his　land　is　also　one。　　If；　then；　the　rate　of　increase　is　ten　per　cent。；　the　maximum　increase　is　0。1。

But　we　have　seen　that；　whenever　a　proprietor　withdraws　from　production；　the　amount　of　products　is　lessened　by　1。　　Then　the　increase　which　accrues　to　him；　being　equal　to　0。1　while　he　remains　among　the　laborers；　will　be　equal　after　his　withdrawal；　by　the　law　of　the　decrease　of　farm…rent；　to　0。09。　　Thus　we　are　led　to　this　final　formula：　　THE　MAXIMUM　INCOME　OF　A　PROPRIETOR　IS　EQUAL　TO　THE　SQUARE　ROOT　OF　THE　PRODUCT　OF　ONE　LABORER　（some　number　being　agreed　upon　to　express　this　product）。　　THE　DIMINUTION　WHICH　THIS　INCOME　SUFFERS；　IF　THE　PROPRIETOR　IS　IDLE；　IS　EQUAL　TO　A　FRACTION　WHOSE　NUMERATOR　IS　1；　AND　WHOSE　DENOMINATOR　IS　THE　NUMBER　WHICH　EXPRESSES　THE　PRODUCT。

Thus　the　maximum　income　of　an　idle　proprietor；　or　of　one　who　labors　in　his　own　behalf　outside　of　the　community；　figured　at　ten　per　cent。　on　an　average　production　of　one　thousand　francs　per　laborer；　would　be　ninety　francs。　　If；　then；　there　are　in　France　one　million　proprietors　with　an　income　of　one　thousand　francs　each；　which　they　consume　unproductively；　instead　of　the　one　thousand　millions　which　are　paid　them　annually；　they　are　entitled　in　strict　justice；　and　by　the　most　accurate　calculation；　to　ninety　millions　only。

It　is　something　of　a　reduction；　to　take　nine　hundred　and　ten　millions　from　the　burdens　which　weigh　so　heavily　upon　the　laboring　class！　　Nevertheless；　the　account　is　not　finished；　and　the　laborer　is　still　ignorant　of　the　full　extent　of　his　rights。

What　is　the　right　of　increase　when　confined　within　just　limits？　　A　recognition　of　the　right　of　occupancy。　　But　since　all　have　an　equal　right　of　occupancy；　every　man　is　by　the　same　title　a　proprietor。　　Every　man　has　a　right　to　an　income　equal　to　a　fraction　of　his　product。　　If；　then；　the　laborer　is　obliged　by　the　right　of　property　to　pay　a　rent　to　the　proprietor；　the　proprietor　is　obliged　by　the　same　right　to　pay　the　same　amount　of　rent　to　the　laborer；　and；　since　their　rights　balance　each　other；　the　difference　between　them　is　zero。

_Scholium_。If　farm…rent　is　only　a　fraction　of　the　supposed　product　of　the　proprietor；　whatever　the　amount　and　value　of　the　property；　the　same　is　true　in　the　case　of　a　large　number　of　small　and　distinct　proprietors。　　For；　although　one　man　may　use　the　property　of　each　separately；　he　cannot　use　the　property　of　all　at　the　same　time。

To　sum　up。　　The　right　of　increase；　which　can　exist　only　within　very　narrow　limits；　defined　by　the　laws　of　production；　is　annihilated　by　the　right　of　occupancy。　　Now；　without　the　right　of　increase；　there　is　no　property。　　Then　property　is　impossible。




FOURTH　PROPOSITION。

Property　is　impossible；　because　it　is　Homicide。


If　the　right　of　increase　could　be　subjected　to　the　laws　of　reason　and　justice；　it　would　be　reduced　to　an　indemnity　or　reward　whose　MAXIMUM　never　could　exceed；　for　a　single　laborer；　a　certain　fraction　of　that　which　he　is　capable　of　producing。　　This　we　have　just　shown。　　But　why　should　the　right　of　increaselet　us　not　fear　to　call　it　by　its　right　name；　the　right　of　robberybe　governed　by　reason；　with　which　it　has　nothing　in　common？　　The　proprietor　is　not　content　with　the　increase　allotted　him　by　good　sense　and　the