tions know no qualifications in their choice of officers save virtues and talents。〃
They certainly ought to have admired so beautiful an idea： they admired a piece of nonsense。 Why！ the sovereign people； legislators； and reformers； see in public offices； to speak plainly； only opportunities for pecuniary advancement。 And； because it regards them as a source of profit； it decrees the eligibility of citizens。 For of what use would this precaution be； if there were nothing to gain by it？ No one would think of ordaining that none but astronomers and geographers should be pilots； nor of prohibiting stutterers from acting at the theatre and the opera。 The nation was still aping the kings： like them it wished to award the lucrative positions to its friends and flatterers。 Unfortunately； and this last feature completes the resemblance； the nation did not control the list of livings； that was in the hands of its agents and representatives。 They； on the other hand； took care not to thwart the will of their gracious sovereign。
This edifying article of the Declaration of Rights； retained in the charters of 1814 and 1830； implies several kinds of civil inequality； that is； of inequality before the law： inequality ofstation； since the public functions are sought only for the consideration and emoluments which they bring； inequality of wealth； since； if it had been desired to equalize fortunes； public service would have been regarded as a duty； not as a reward； inequality of privilege； the law not stating what it means by TALENTS and VIRTUES。 Under the empire； virtue and talent consisted simply in military bravery and devotion to the emperor； that was shown when Napoleon created his nobility； and attempted to connect it with the ancients。 To…day； the man who pays taxes to the amount of two hundred francs is virtuous； the talented man is the honest pickpocket： such truths as these are accounted trivial。
The people finally legalized property。 God forgive them； for they knew not what they did！ For fifty years they have suffered for their miserable folly。 But how came the people； whose voice； they tell us； is the voice of God； and whose conscience is infallible；how came the people to err？ How happens it that； when seeking liberty and equality； they fell back into privilege and slavery？ Always through copying the ancient regime。
Formerly； the nobility and the clergy contributed towards the expenses of the State only by voluntary aid and gratuitous gift； their property could not be seized even for debt；while the plebeian； overwhelmed by taxes and statute…labor； was continually tormented； now by the king's tax…gatherers； now by those of the nobles and clergy。 He whose possessions were subject to mortmain could neither bequeath nor inherit property； he was treated like the animals； whose services and offspring belong to their master by right of accession。 The people wanted the conditions of OWNERSHIP to be alike for all； they thought that every one should ENJOY AND FREELY DISPOSE OF HIS POSSESSIONS HIS INCOME AND THE FRUIT OF HIS LABOR AND INDUSTRY。 The people did not invent property； but as they had not the same privileges in regard to it； which the nobles and clergy possessed； they decreed that the right should be exercised by all under the same conditions。 The more obnoxious forms of propertystatute…labor； mortmain； maitrise； and exclusion from public officehave disappeared； the conditions of its enjoyment have been modified： the principle still remains the same。 There has been progress in the regulation of the right； there has been no revolution。
These； then； are the three fundamental principles of modern society； established one after another by the movements of 1789 and 1830： 1。 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE HUMAN WILL； in short； DESPOTISM。 2。 INEQUALITY OF WEALTH AND RANK。 3。 PROPERTY above JUSTICE； always invoked as the guardian angel of sovereigns； nobles； and proprietors； JUSTICE； the general； primitive； categorical law of all society。
We must ascertain whether the ideas of DESPOTISM； CIVIL INEQUALITY and PROPERTY； are in harmony with the primitive notion of JUSTICE； and necessarily follow from it；assuming various forms according to the condition； position； and relation of persons； or whether they are not rather the illegitimate result of a confusion of different things； a fatal association of ideas。 And since justice deals especially with the questions of government； the condition of persons； and the possession of things； we must ascertain under what conditions； judging by universal opinion and the progress of the human mind； government is just； the condition of citizens is just； and the possession of things is just； then； striking out every thing which fails to meet these conditions； the result will at once tell us what legitimate government is； what the legitimate condition of citizens is； and what the legitimate possession of things is； and finally； as the last result of the analysis； what JUSTICE is。
Is the authority of man over man just？
Everybody answers； 〃No； the authority of man is only the authority of the law； which ought to be justice and truth。〃 The private will counts for nothing in government； which consists； first； in discovering truth and justice in order to make the law； and； second； in superintending the execution of this law。 I do not now inquire whether our constitutional form of government satisfies these conditions； whether； for example； the will of the ministry never influences the declaration and interpretation of the law； or whether our deputies； in their debates； are more intent on conquering by argument than by force of numbers： it is enough for me that my definition of a good government is allowed to be correct。 This idea is exact。 Yet we see that nothing seems more just to the Oriental nations than the despotism of their sovereigns； that； with the ancients and in the opinion of the philosophers themselves； slavery was just； that in the middle ages the nobles； the priests； and the bishops felt justified in holding slaves； that Louis XIV。 thought that he was right when he said； 〃The State！ I am the State；〃 and that Napoleon deemed it a crime for the State to oppose his will。 The idea of justice； then； applied to sovereignty and government； has not always been what it is to…day； it has gone on developing and shaping itself by degrees； until it has arrived at its present state。 But has
it reached its last phase？ I think not： only； as the last obstacle to be overcome arises from the institution of property which we have kept intact； in order to finish the reform in government and consummate the revolution； this very institution we must attack。
Is political and civil inequality just？
Some say yes； others no。 To the first I would reply that； when the people abolished all privileges of birth and caste； they did it； in all probability； because it was for their advantage； why then do they favor the privileges of fortune more than those of rank and race？ Because； say they； political inequality is a result of property； and without property society is impossible： thus the question just raised becomes a question of property。 To the second I content myself with this remark： If you wish to enjoy political equality； abolish property； otherwise； why do you complain？
Is property just？
Everybody answers without hesitation； 〃Yes； property is just。〃 I say everybody； for up to the present time no one who thoroughly understood the meaning of his words has answered no。 For it is no easy thing to reply understandingly to such a question； only time and experience can furnish an answer。 Now； this answer is given； it is for us to understand it。 I undertake to prove it。
We are to proceed with the demonstration in the following order：
I。 We dispute not at all； we refute nobody； we deny nothing； we accept as sound all the arguments alleged in favor of property； and confine ourselves to a search for its principle； in order that we may then ascertain whether this principle is faithfully expressed by property。 In fact； property being defensible on no ground save that of justice； the idea； or at least the intention； of justice must of necessity underlie all the arguments that have been made in defence of property； and； as on the other hand the right of property is only exercised over those things which can be appreciated by the senses； justice； secretly objectifying itself； so to speak； must take the shape of an algebraic formula。
By this method of investigation； we soon see that every argument which has been invented in behalf of property； WHATEVER IT MAY BE； always and of necessity leads to equality； that is； to the negation of property。
The first part covers two chapters： one treating of occupation； the foundation of our right； the other； of labor and talent； considered as causes of property and social inequality。
The first of these chapters will prove that the right of occupation OBSTRUCTS property； the second that the right of labor DESTROYS it。
II。 Property； then； being of necessity conceived as existing only in connection with equality； it remains to find out why； in spite of this necessity of logic； equality does not exist。 This new investigation also covers two chapters： in the first； considering the fact of property in itself； we inquire whether this fact is real； whether it exists； whether it is possible； for it would imply a contradiction； were these two opposite forms of society； equality and inequality； both possible。 Then we discover； singularly enough； that property may indeed manifest itself accidentally； but that； as an institution and principle； it is mathematically impossible。 So that the axiom of the schoolab actu ad posse valet consecutio： from the actual to the possible the inference is goodis given the lie as far as property is concerned。
Finally； in the last chapter； calling psychology to our aid； and probing man's nature to the bottom； we shall disclose the principle of JUSTICEits formula and character； we shall state with precision the organic law of society； we shall explain the origin of property； the causes of its establishment； its long life； and its approaching death； we shall definitively establish its identity with robbery。 And； after h