what is property- 第24部分

What　is　a　passport？　　A　universal　recommendation　of　the　traveller's　person；　a　certificate　of　security　for　himself　and　his　property。　　The　treasury；　whose　nature　it　is　to　spoil　the　best　things；　has　made　the　passport　a　means　of　espionage　and　a　tax。　　Is　not　this　a　sale　of　the　right　to　travel？

Finally；　it　is　permissible　neither　to　draw　water　from　a　spring　situated　in　another's　grounds　without　the　permission　of　the　proprietor；　because　by　the　right　of　accession　the　spring　belongs　to　the　possessor　of　the　soil；　if　there　is　no　other　claim；　nor　to　pass　a　day　on　his　premises　without　paying　a　tax；　nor　to　look　at　a　court；　a　garden；　or　an　orchard；　without　the　consent　of　the　proprietor；　nor　to　stroll　in　a　park　or　an　enclosure　against　the　owner's　will：　every　one　is　allowed　to　shut　himself　up　and　to　fence　himself　in。　　All　these　prohibitions　are　so　many　positive　interdictions；　not　only　of　the　land；　but　of　the　air　and　water。　　We　who　belong　to　the　proletaire　class：　property　excommunicates　us！　　_Terra；　et　aqua；　et　aere；　et　igne　interdicti　sumus_。

Men　could　not　appropriate　the　most　fixed　of　all　the　elements　without　appropriating　the　three　others；　since；　by　French　and　Roman　law；　property　in　the　surface　carries　with　it　property　from　zenith　to　nadir_Cujus　est　solum；　ejus　est　usque　ad　caelum_。　　Now；　if　the　use　of　water；　air；　and　fire　excludes　property；　so　does　the　use　of　the　soil。　　This　chain　of　reasoning　seems　to　have　been　presented　by　M。　Ch。　Comte；　in　his　〃Treatise　on　Property；〃　chap。　5。


〃If　a　man　should　be　deprived　of　air　for　a　few　moments　only；　he　would　cease　to　exist；　and　a　partial　deprivation　would　cause　him　severe　suffering；　a　partial　or　complete　deprivation　of　food　would　produce　like　effects　upon　him　though　less　suddenly；　it　would　be　the　same；　at　least　in　certain　climates！　were　he　deprived　of　all　clothing　and　shelter。　。　。　。　　To　sustain　life；　then；　man　needs　continually　to　appropriate　many　different　things。　　But　these　things　do　not　exist　in　like　proportions。　　Some；　such　as　the　light　of　the　stars；　the　atmosphere　of　the　earth；　the　water　composing　the　seas　and　oceans；　exist　in　such　large　quantities　that　men　cannot　perceive　any　sensible　increase　or　diminution；　each　one　can　appropriate　as　much　as　his　needs　require　without　detracting　from　the　enjoyment　of　others；　without　causing　them　the　least　harm。　　Things　of　this　sort　are；　so　to　speak；　the　common　property　of　the　human　race；　the　only　duty　imposed　upon　each　individual　in　this　regard　is　that　of　infringing　not　at　all　upon　the　rights　of　others。〃


Let　us　complete　the　argument　of　M。　Ch。　Comte。　　A　man　who　should　be　prohibited　from　walking　in　the　highways；　from　resting　in　the　fields；　from　taking　shelter　in　caves；　from　lighting　fires；　from　picking　berries；　from　gathering　herbs　and　boiling　them　in　a　bit　of　baked　clay；such　a　man　could　not　live。　　Consequently　the　earthlike　water；　air；　and　lightis　a　primary　object　of　necessity　which　each　has　a　right　to　use　freely；　without　infringing　another's　right。　　Why；　then；　is　the　earth　appropriated？　　M。　Ch。　Comte's　reply　is　a　curious　one。　　Say　pretends　that　it　is　because　it　is　not　FUGITIVE；　M。　Ch。　Comte　assures　us　that　it　is　because　it　is　not　INFINITE。　　The　land　is　limited　in　amount。　　Then；　according　to　M。　Ch。　Comte；　it　ought　to　be　appropriated。　　It　would　seem；　on　the　contrary；　that　he　ought　to　say；　Then　it　ought　not　to　be　appropriated。　　Because；　no　matter　how　large　a　quantity　of　air　or　light　any　one　appropriates；　no　one　is　damaged　thereby；　there　always　remains　enough　for　all。　　With　the　soil；　it　is　very　different。　　Lay　hold　who　will；　or　who　can；　of　the　sun's　rays；　the　passing　breeze；　or　the　sea's　billows；　he　has　my　consent；　and　my　pardon　for　his　bad　intentions。　　But　let　any　living　man　dare　to　change　his　right　of　territorial　possession　into　the　right　of　property；　and　I　will　declare　war　upon　him；　and　wage　it　to　the　death！

M。　Ch。　Comte's　argument　disproves　his　position。　　〃Among　the　things　necessary　to　the　preservation　of　life；〃　he　says；　〃there　are　some　which　exist　in　such　large　quantities　that　they　are　inexhaustible；　others　which　exist　in　lesser　quantities；　and　can　satisfy　the　wants　of　only　a　certain　number　of　persons。　　The　former　are　called　COMMON；　the　latter　PRIVATE。〃

This　reasoning　is　not　strictly　logical。　　Water；　air；　and　light　are　COMMON　things；　not　because　they　are　INEXHAUSTIBLE；　but　because　they　are　INDISPENSABLE；　and　so　indispensable　that　for　that　very　reason　Nature　has　created　them　in　quantities　almost　infinite；　in　order　that　their　plentifulness　might　prevent　their　appropriation。　　Likewise　the　land　is　indispensable　to　our　existence；consequently　a　common　thing；　consequently　insusceptible　of　appropriation；　but　land　is　much　scarcer　than　the　other　elements；　therefore　its　use　must　be　regulated；　not　for　the　profit　of　a　few；　but　in　the　interest　and　for　the　security　of　all。

In　a　word；　equality　of　rights　is　proved　by　equality　of　needs。　　Now；　equality　of　rights；　in　the　case　of　a　commodity　which　is　limited　in　amount；　can　be　realized　only　by　equality　of　possession。　　An　agrarian　law　underlies　M。　Ch。　Comte's　arguments。

From　whatever　point　we　view　this　question　of　propertyprovided　we　go　to　the　bottom　of　itwe　reach　equality。　　I　will　not　insist　farther　on　the　distinction　between　things　which　can；　and　things　which　cannot；　be　appropriated。　　On　this　point；　economists　and　legists　talk　worse　than　nonsense。　　The　Civil　Code；　after　having　defined　property；　says　nothing　about　susceptibility　of　appropriation；　and　if　it　speaks　of　things　which　are　in　THE　MARKET；　it　always　does　so　without　enumerating　or　describing　them。　　However；　light　is　not　wanting。　　There　are　some　few　maxims　such　as　these：　_Ad　reges　potestas　omnium　pertinet；　ad　singulos　proprietas；　Omnia　rex　imperio　possidet；　singula　dominio_。　　Social　sovereignty　opposed　to　private　property！might　not　that　be　called　a　prophecy　of　equality；　a　republican　oracle？　　Examples　crowd　upon　us：　once　the　possessions　of　the　church；　the　estates　of　the　crown；　the　fiefs　of　the　nobility　were　inalienable　and　imprescriptible。　　If；　instead　of　abolishing　this　privilege；　the　Constituent　had　extended　it　to　every　individual；　if　it　had　declared　that　the　right　of　labor；　like　liberty；　can　never　be　forfeited；at　that　moment　the　revolution　would　have　been　consummated；　and　we　could　now　devote　ourselves　to　improvement　in　other　directions。

％　2。Universal　Consent　no　Justification　of　Property。


In　the　extract　from　Say；　quoted　above；　it　is　not　clear　whether　the　author　means　to　base　the　right　of　property　on　the　stationary　character　of　the　soil；　or　on　the　consent　which　he　thinks　all　men　have　granted　to　this　appropriation。　　His　language　is　such　that　it　may　mean　either　of　these　things；　or　both　at　once；　which　entitles　us　to　assume　that　the　author　intended　to　say；　〃The　right　of　property　resulting　originally　from　the　exercise　of　the　will；　the　stability　of　the　soil　permitted　it　to　be　applied　to　the　land；　and　universal　consent　has　since　sanctioned　this　application。〃

However　that　may　be；　can　men　legitimate　property　by　mutual　consent？　　I　say；　no。　　Such　a　contract；　though　drafted　by　Grotius；　Montesquieu；　and　J。　J。　Rousseau；　though　signed　by　the　whole　human　race；　would　be　null　in　the　eyes　of　justice；　and　an　act　to　enforce　it　would　be　illegal。　　Man　can　no　more　give　up　labor　than　liberty。　　Now；　to　recognize　the　right　of　territorial　property　is　to　give　up　labor；　since　it　is　to　relinquish　the　means　of　labor；　it　is　to　traffic　in　a　natural　right；　and　divest　ourselves　of　manhood。

But　I　wish　that　this　consent；　of　which　so　much　is　made；　had　been　given；　either　tacitly　or　formally。　　What　would　have　been　the　result？　　Evidently；　the　surrenders　would　have　been　reciprocal；　no　right　would　have　been　abandoned　without　the　receipt　of　an　equivalent　in　exchange。　　We　thus　come　back　to　equality　again；　the　sine　qua　non　of　appropriation；　so　that；　after　having　justified　property　by　universal　consent；　that　is；　by　equality；　we　are　obliged　to　justify　the　inequality　of　conditions　by　property。　　Never　shall　we　extricate　ourselves　from　this　dilemma。　　Indeed；　if；　in　the　terms　of　the　social　compact；　property　has　equality　for　its　condition；　at　the　moment　when　equality　ceases　to　exist；　the　compact　is　broken　and　all　property　becomes　usurpation。　　We　gain　nothing；　then；　by　this　pretended　consent　of　mankind。


％　3。Prescription　Gives　No　Title　to　Property。


The　right　of　property　was　the　origin　of　evil　on　the　earth；　the　first　link　in　the　long　chain　of　crimes　and　misfortunes　which　the　human　race　has　endured　since　its　birth。　　The　delusion　of　prescription　is　the　fatal　charm　thrown　over　the　intellect；　the　death　sentence　breathed　into　the　conscience；　to　arrest　man's　progress　towards　truth；　and　bolster　up　the　worship　of　error。

The　Code　defines　prescription　thus：　　〃The　process　of　gaining　and　losing　through　the　lapse　of　time。〃　　In　applying　this　definition　to　ideas　and　beliefs；　we　may　use　the　word　PRESCRIPTION　to　denote　the　everlasting　prejudice　in　favor　of　old　superstitions；　whatever　be　their　object；　the　opposition；　often　furious　and　bloody；　with　which　new　light　has　always　been　received；　and　which　makes　the　sage　a　martyr。　　Not　a　principle；　not　a　discovery；　not　a　generous　thought　but　has　met；　at　its　entrance　into　the　world；　with　a　formidable　barrier　of　preconceived　opinions；　seeming　like　a　conspiracy　of　all　old　prejudices。　　Prescriptions　against　reason；　prescriptions　against　facts；　prescriptions　against　every　truth　hitherto　unknown；that　is　the　sum　and　substance　of　the　_statu　quo_　philosophy；　the　watchword　of　conservatives　throughout　the　centuries。

When　the　evangelical　reform　was　broached　to　the　world；　there　was　prescription　in　favor　of　violence；　debauchery；　and　selfishness；　when　Galileo；　Descartes；　Pascal；　and　their　disciples　reconstructed　philosophy　and　the　sciences；　there　was　prescription　in　favor　of　the　Aristotelian　philosophy；　when　our　fathers　of　'89　demanded　liberty　and　equality；　there　was　prescription　in　favor　of　tyranny　and　privilege。　　〃There　always　have　been　proprietors　and　there　always　will　be：〃　it　is　with　this　profound　utterance；　the　final　effort　of　selfishness　dying　in　its　last　ditch；　that　the　friends　of　social　inequality　hope　to　repel　the　attacks　of　their　adversaries；　thinking　undoubtedly　that　ideas；　like　property；　can　be　lost　by　prescription。

Enlightened　to…day　by　the　triumphal　march　of　science