am I bound to go to his assistance？ Yes； I am bound under penalty of being adjudged guilty of murder and treason against society。
But am I also bound to share with him my provisions？
To settle this question； we must change the phraseology。 If society is binding on the boat； is it also binding on the provisions？ Undoubtedly。 The duty of an associate is absolute。 Man's occupancy succeeds his social nature； and is subordinate to it； possession can become exclusive only when permission to occupy is granted to all alike。 That which in this instance obscures our duty is our power of foresight； which； causing us to fear an eventual danger； impels us to usurpation； and makes us robbers and murderers。 Animals do not calculate the duty of instinct any more than the disadvantages resulting to those who exercise it； it would be strange if the intellect of man the most sociable of animalsshould lead him to disobey the law。
He betrays society who attempts to use it only for his own advantage； better that God should deprive us of prudence； if it is to serve as the tool of our selfishness。
〃What！〃 you will say； 〃must I share my bread； the bread which I have earned and which belongs to me； with the stranger whom I do not know； whom I may never see again； and who； perhaps； will reward me with ingratitude？ If we had earned this bread together； if this man had done something to obtain it； he might demand his share； since his co…operation would entitle him to it； but as it is； what claim has he on me？ We have not produced togetherwe shall not eat together。〃
The fallacy in this argument lies in the false supposition； that each producer is not necessarily associated with every other producer。
When two or more individuals have regularly organized a society；when the contracts have been agreed upon； drafted； and signed；there is no difficulty about the future。 Everybody knows that when two men associatefor instancein order to fish； if one of them catches no fish； he is none the less entitled to those caught by his associate。 If two merchants form a partnership； while the partnership lasts； the profits and losses are divided between them； since each produces； not for himself； but for the society： when the time of distribution arrives； it is not the producer who is considered； but the associate。 That is why the slave； to whom the planter gives straw and rice； and the civilized laborer； to whom the capitalist pays a salary which is always too small；not being associated with their employers； although producing with them；are disregarded when the product is divided。 Thus； the horse who draws our coaches； and the ox who draws our carts produce with us； but are not associated with us； we take their product； but do not share it with them。 The animals and laborers whom we employ hold the same relation to us。 Whatever we do for them； we do； not from a sense of justice； but out of pure benevolence。＇1＇
＇1＇ To perform an act of benevolence towards one's neighbor is called； in Hebrew； to do justice； in Greek； to take compassion or pity （｛GREEK n n f e ｝；from which is derived the French _aumone_）； in Latin； to perform an act of love or charity； in French； give alms。 We can trace the degradation of this principle through these various expressions： the first signifies duty； the second only sympathy； the third； affection； a matter of choice； not an obligation； the fourth； caprice。
But is it possible that we are not all associated？ Let us call to mind what was said in the last two chapters； That even though we do not want to be associated； the force of things； the necessity of consumption； the laws of production； and the mathematical principle of exchange combine to associate us。 There is but a single exception to this rule；that of the proprietor； who； producing by his right of increase； is not associated with any one； and consequently is not obliged to share his product with any one； just as no one else is bound to share with him。 With the exception of the proprietor； we labor for each other； we can do nothing by ourselves unaided by others； and we continually exchange products and services with each other。 If these are not social acts； what are they？
Now； neither a commercial； nor an industrial； nor an agricultural association can be conceived of in the absence of equality； equality is its sine qua non。 So that； in all matters which concern this association； to violate society is to violate justice and equality。 Apply this principle to humanity at large。
After what has been said； I assume that the reader has sufficient insight to enable him to dispense with any aid of mine。
By this principle； the man who takes possession of a field； and says； 〃This field is mine；〃 will not be unjust so long as every one else has an equal right of possession； nor will he be unjust； if； wishing to change his location； he exchanges this field for an equivalent。 But if； putting another in his place； he says to him； 〃Work for me while I rest；〃 he then becomes unjust； unassociated； UNEQUAL。 He is a proprietor。
Reciprocally； the sluggard； or the rake； who； without performing any social task； enjoys like othersand often more than others the products of society； should be proceeded against as a thief and a parasite。 We owe it to ourselves to give him nothing； but； since he must live； to put him under supervision； and compel him to labor。
Sociability is the attraction felt by sentient beings for each other。 Justice is this same attraction； accompanied by thought and knowledge。 But under what general concept； in what category of the understanding； is justice placed？ In the category of equal quantities。 Hence； the ancient definition of justice _Justum aequale est； injustum inaequale_。 What is it； then； to practise justice？ It is to give equal wealth to each； on condition of equal labor。 It is to act socially。 Our selfishness may complain； there is no escape from evidence and necessity。
What is the right of occupancy？ It is a natural method of dividing the earth； by reducing each laborer's share as fast as new laborers present themselves。 This right disappears if the public interest requires it； which； being the social interest； is also that of the occupant。
What is the right of labor？ It is the right to obtain one's share of wealth by fulfilling the required conditions。 It is the right of society； the right of equality。
Justice； which is the product of the combination of an idea and an instinct； manifests itself in man as soon as he is capable of feeling； and of forming ideas。 Consequently； it has been regarded as an innate and original sentiment； but this opinion is logically and chronologically false。 But justice； by its composition hybridif I may use the term；justice； born of emotion and intellect combined； seems to me one of the strongest proofs of the unity and simplicity of the ego； the organism being no more capable of producing such a mixture by itself； than are the combined senses of hearing and sight of forming a binary sense； half auditory and half visual。
This double nature of justice gives us the definitive basis of all the demonstrations in Chapters II。； III。； and IV。 On the one hand； the idea of JUSTICE being identical with that of society； and society necessarily implying equality； equality must underlie all the sophisms invented in defence of property； for； since property can be defended only as a just and social institution； and property being inequality； in order to prove that property is in harmony with society； it must be shown that injustice is justice； and that inequality is equality；a contradiction in terms。 On the other hand； since the idea of equalitythe second element of justicehas its source in the mathematical proportions of things； and since property； or the unequal distribution of wealth among laborers； destroys the necessary balance between labor； production； and consumption；property must be impossible。
All men； then； are associated； all are entitled to the same justice； all are equal。 Does it follow that the preferences of love and friendship are unjust？
This requires explanation。 I have already supposed the case of a man in peril； I being in a position to help him。 Now； I suppose myself appealed to at the same time by two men exposed to danger。
Am I not allowedam I not commanded evento rush first to the aid of him who is endeared to me by ties of blood； friendship； acquaintance； or esteem； at the risk of leaving the other to perish？ Yes。 And why？ Because within universal society there exist for each of us as many special societies as there are individuals； and we are bound； by the principle of sociability itself； to fulfil the obligations which these impose upon us； according to the intimacy of our relations with them。 Therefore we must give our father； mother； children； friends； relatives； &c。； the preference over all others。 But in what consists this preference？
A judge has a case to decide； in which one of the parties is his friend； and the other his enemy。 Should he； in this instance； prefer his INTIMATE ASSOCIATE to his DISTANT ASSOCIATE； and decide the case in favor of his friend； in spite of evidence to the contrary？ No： for； if he should favor his friend's injustice； he would become his accomplice in his violation of the social compact； he would form with him a sort of conspiracy against the social body。 Preference should be shown only in personal matters； such as love； esteem； confidence； or intimacy； when all cannot be considered at once。 Thus； in case of fire； a father would save his own child before thinking of his neighbor's； but the recognition of a right not being an optional matter with a judge； he is not at liberty to favor one person to the detriment of another。
The theory of these special societieswhich are formed concentrically； so to speak； by each of us inside of the main bodygives the key to all the problems which arise from the opposition and conflict of the different varieties of social duty；problems upon which the ancient tragedies are based。
The justice practised among animals is； in a certain degree； negative。 With the exception of protecting their young； hunting and plundering in troops； uniting for common defence and someti