right of possession？ No。 Also； at the same time that prescription was introduced into the laws； it was admitted that property is preserved by intent alone；_nudo animo_。 Now； if property is preserved by intent alone； if it can be lost only by the action of the proprietor； what can be the use of prescription？ How does the law dare to presume that the proprietor； who preserves by intent alone； intended to abandon that which he has allowed to be prescribed？ What lapse of time can warrant such a conjecture； and by what right does the law punish the absence of the proprietor by depriving him of his goods？ What then！ we found but a moment since that prescription and property were identical； and now we find that they are mutually destructive！
Grotius； who perceived this difficulty； replied so singularly that his words deserve to be quoted： _ Bene sperandum de hominibus； ac propterea non putandum eos hoc esse animo ut； rei caducae causa； hominem alterum velint in perpetuo peccato versari； quo d evitari saepe non poterit sine tali derelictione_。
〃Where is the man；〃 he says； 〃with so unchristian a soul that； for a trifle； he would perpetuate the trespass of a possessor； which would inevitably be the result if he did not consent to abandon his right？〃 By the Eternal！ I am that man。 Though a million proprietors should burn for it in hell； I lay the blame on them for depriving me of my portion of this world's goods。 To this powerful consideration Grotius rejoins； that it is better to abandon a disputed right than to go to law； disturb the peace of nations； and stir up the flames of civil war。 I accept； if you wish it； this argument； provided you indemnify me。 But if this indemnity is refused me； what do I； a proletaire； care for the tranquillity and security of the rich？ I care as little for PUBLIC ORDER as for the proprietor's safety。 I ask to live a laborer； otherwise I will die a warrior。
Whichever way we turn； we shall come to the conclusion that prescription is a contradiction of property； or rather that prescription and property are two forms of the same principle； but two forms which serve to correct each other； and ancient and modern jurisprudence did not make the least of its blunders in pretending to reconcile them。 Indeed； if we see in the institution of property only a desire to secure to each individual his share of the soil and his right to labor； in the distinction between naked property and possession only an asylum for absentees； orphans； and all who do not know； or cannot maintain； their rights； in prescription only a means； either of defence against unjust pretensions and encroachments； or of settlement of the differences caused by the removal of possessors；we shall recognize in these various forms of human justice the spontaneous efforts of the mind to come to the aid of the social instinct； we shall see in this protection of all rights the sentiment of equality； a constant levelling tendency。 And； looking deeper； we shall find in the very exaggeration of these principles the confirmation of our doctrine； because； if equality of conditions and universal association are not soon realized； it will be owing to the obstacle thrown for the time in the way of the common sense of the people by the stupidity of legislators and judges； and also to the fact that； while society in its original state was illuminated with a flash of truth； the early speculations of its leaders could bring forth nothing but darkness。
After the first covenants； after the first draughts of laws and constitutions； which were the expression of man's primary needs； the legislator's duty was to reform the errors of legislation； to complete that which was defective； to harmonize； by superior definitions； those things which seemed to conflict。 Instead of that； they halted at the literal meaning of the laws； content to play the subordinate part of commentators and scholiasts。 Taking the inspirations of the human mind； at that time necessarily weak and faulty； for axioms of eternal and unquestionable truth；influenced by public opinion； enslaved by the popular religion；they have invariably started with the principle （following in this respect the example of the theologians） that that is infallibly true which has been admitted by all persons； in all places； and at all times_quod ab omnibus； quod ubique； quod semper；_ as if a general but spontaneous opinion was any thing more than an indication of the truth。 Let us not be deceived： the opinion of all nations may serve to authenticate the perception of a fact； the vague sentiment of a law； it can teach us nothing about either fact or law。 The consent of mankind is an indication of Nature； not； as Cicero says； a law of Nature。 Under the indication is hidden the truth； which faith can believe； but only thought can know。 Such has been the constant progress of the human mind in regard to physical phenomena and the creations of genius： how can it be otherwise with the facts of conscience and the rules of human conduct？
％ 4。LaborThat Labor Has No Inherent Power to Appropriate Natural Wealth。
We shall show by the maxims of political economy and law； that is； by the authorities recognized by property；
1。 That labor has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth。
2。 That； if we admit that labor has this power； we are led directly to equality of property；whatever the kind of labor； however scarce the product； or unequal the ability of the laborers。
3。 That； in the order of justice； labor DESTROYS property。
Following the example of our opponents； and that we may leave no obstacles in the path； let us examine the question in the strongest possible light。
M。 Ch。 Comte says； in his 〃Treatise on Property：〃
〃France； considered as a nation； has a territory which is her own。〃
France； as an individuality； possesses a territory which she cultivates； it is not her property。 Nations are related to each other as individuals are： they are commoners and workers； it is an abuse of language to call them proprietors。 The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations than to men； and the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of checking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy war。
Thus； M。 Ch。 Comtewho undertakes to explain how property comes into existence； and who starts with the supposition that a nation is a proprietorfalls into that error known as BEGGING THE QUESTION； a mistake which vitiates his whole argument。
If the reader thinks it is pushing logic too far to question a nation's right of property in the territory which it possesses； I will simply remind him of the fact that at all ages the results of the fictitious right of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty； tributes； monarchical privileges； statute…labor； quotas of men and money； supplies of merchandise； &c。； ending finally in refusals to pay taxes； insurrections； wars； and depopulations。
〃Scattered through this territory are extended tracts of land； which have not been converted into individual property。 These lands； which consist mainly of forests； belong to the whole population； and the government； which receives the revenues； uses or ought to use them in the interest of all。〃
OUGHT TO USE is well said： a lie is avoided thereby。
〃Let them be offered for sale。 。 。 。〃
Why offered for sale？ Who has a right to sell them？ Even were the nation proprietor； can the generation of to…day dispossess the generation of to…morrow？ The nation； in its function of usufructuary； possesses them； the government rules； superintends； and protects them。 If it also granted lands； it could grant only their use； it has no right to sell them or transfer them in any way whatever。 Not being a proprietor； how can it transmit property？
〃Suppose some industrious man buys a portion； a large swamp for example。 This would be no usurpation； since the public would receive the exact value through the hands of the government； and would be as rich after the sale as before。〃
How ridiculous！ What！ because a prodigal； imprudent； incompetent official sells the State's possessions； while I； a ward of the State；I who have neither an advisory nor a deliberative voice in the State councils；while I am allowed to make no opposition to the sale； this sale is right and legal！ The guardians of the nation waste its substance； and it has no redress！ I have received； you tell me； through the hands of the government my share of the proceeds of the sale： but； in the first place； I did not wish to sell； and； had I wished to； I could not have sold。 I had not the right。 And then I do not see that I am benefited by the sale。 My guardians have dressed up some soldiers； repaired an old fortress； erected in their pride some costly but worthless monument；then they have exploded some fireworks and set up a greased pole！ What does all that amount to in comparison with my loss？
The purchaser draws boundaries； fences himself in； and says； 〃This is mine； each one by himself； each one for himself。〃 Here； then； is a piece of land upon which； henceforth； no one has a right to step； save the proprietor and his friends； which can benefit nobody； save the proprietor and his servants。 Let these sales multiply； and soon the peoplewho have been neither able nor willing to sell； and who have received none of the proceeds of the salewill have nowhere to rest； no place of shelter； no ground to till。 They will die of hunger at the proprietor's door； on the edge of that property which was their birthright； and the proprietor； watching them die； will exclaim； 〃 So perish idlers and vagrants！〃
To reconcile us to the proprietor's usurpation； M。 Ch。 Comte assumes the lands to be of little value at the time of sale。
〃The importance of these usurpations should not be exaggerated： they should be measured by the number of men which the occupied land would support； and by the means which it would furnish them。
It is evident； for instance； that if a piece of land which is worth to…day one thousand francs was worth only five centimes when it was usurped； we really lose only the value of five centimes。 A square league of earth would be hardly sufficient to support a savage in distress； to…day it supp