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！
ty of facilities for labor。 Whoever without labor got possession； by force or by strategy； of another's means of subsistence； destroyed equality； and placed himself above or outside of the law。 Whoever monopolized the means of production on the ground of greater industry； also destroyed equality。 Equality being then the expression of right； whoever violated it was UNJUST。
Thus； labor gives birth to private possession； the right in a thingjus in re。 But in what thing？ Evidently IN THE PRODUCT； not IN THE SOIL。 So the Arabs have always understood it； and so； according to Caesar and Tacitus； the Germans formerly held。 〃The Arabs；〃 says M。 de Sismondi； 〃who admit a man's property in the flocks which he has raised； do not refuse the crop to him who planted the seed； but they do not see why another； his equal； should not have a right to plant in his turn。
The inequality which results from the pretended right of the first occupant seems to them to be based on no principle of justice； and when all the land falls into the hands of a certain number of inhabitants； there results a monopoly in their favor against the rest of the nation； to which they do not wish to submit。〃
Well； they have shared the land。 I admit that therefrom results a more powerful organization of labor； and that this method of distribution； fixed and durable； is advantageous to production： but how could this division give to each a transferable right of property in a thing to which all had an inalienable right of possession？ In the terms of jurisprudence； this metamorphosis from possessor to proprietor is legally impossible； it implies in the jurisdiction of the courts the union of possessoire and petitoire； and the mutual concessions of those who share the land are nothing less than traffic in natural rights。 The original cultivators of the land； who were also the original makers of the law； were not as learned as our legislators； I admit； and had they been； they could not have done worse： they did not foresee the consequences of the transformation of the right of private possession into the right of absolute property。 But why have not those； who in later times have established the distinction between jus in re and jus ad rem； applied it to the principle of property itself？
Let me call the attention of the writers on jurisprudence to their own maxims。
The right of property； provided it can have a cause； can have but one_Dominium non potest nisi ex una causa contingere_。 I can possess by several titles； I can become proprietor by only one _Non ut ex pluribus causis idem nobis deberi potest； ita ex pluribus causis idem potest nostrum esse_。 The field which I have cleared； which I cultivate； on which I have built my house； which supports myself； my family； and my livestock； I can possess： 1st。 As the original occupant； 2d。 As a laborer； 3d。 By virtue of the social contract which assigns it to me as my share。
But none of these titles confer upon me the right of property。 For； if I attempt to base it upon occupancy； society can reply； 〃I am the original occupant。〃 If I appeal to my labor； it will say； 〃It is only on that condition that you possess。〃 If I speak of agreements； it will respond； 〃These agreements establish only your right of use。〃 Such； however； are the only titles which proprietors advance。 They never have been able to discover any others。 Indeed； every rightit is Pothier who says itsupposes a producing cause in the person who enjoys it； but in man who lives and dies； in this son of earth who passes away like a shadow； there exists； with respect to external things； only titles of possession； not one title of property。 Why； then； has society recognized a right injurious to itself； where there is no producing cause？ Why； in according possession； has it also conceded property？ Why has the law sanctioned this abuse of power？
The German Ancillon replies thus：
〃Some philosophers pretend that man； in employing his forces upon a natural object；say a field or a tree；acquires a right only to the improvements which he makes； to the form which he gives to the object； not to the object itself。 Useless distinction！ If the form could be separated from the object； perhaps there would be room for question； but as this is almost always impossible； the application of man's strength to the different parts of the visible world is the foundation of the right of property； the primary origin of riches。〃
Vain pretext！ If the form cannot be separated from the object； nor property from possession； possession must be shared； in any case； society reserves the right to fix the conditions of property。 Let us suppose that an appropriated farm yields a gross income of ten thousand francs； and； as very seldom happens； that this farm cannot be divided。 Let us suppose farther that； by economical calculation； the annual expenses of a family are three thousand francs： the possessor of this farm should be obliged to guard his reputation as a good father of a family； by paying to society ten thousand francs；less the total costs of cultivation； and the three thousand francs required for the maintenance of his family。 This payment is not rent； it is an indemnity。
What sort of justice is it； then； which makes such laws as this：
〃Whereas； since labor so changes the form of a thing that the form and substance cannot be separated without destroying the thing itself； either society must be disinherited； or the laborer must lose the fruit of his labor； and
〃Whereas； in every other case； property in raw material would give a title to added improvements； minus their cost； and whereas； in this instance； property in improvements ought to give a title to the principal；
〃Therefore； the right of appropriation by labor shall never be admitted against individuals； but only against society。〃
In such a way do legislators always reason in regard to property。
The law is intended to protect men's mutual rights；that is； the rights of each against each； and each against all； and； as if a proportion could exist with less than four terms； the law…makers always disregard the latter。 As long as man is opposed to man； property offsets property； and the two forces balance each other； as soon as man is isolated； that is； opposed to the society which he himself represents； jurisprudence is at fault： Themis has lost one scale of her balance。
Listen to the professor of Rennes； the learned Toullier：
〃How could this claim； made valid by occupation； become stable and permanent property； which might continue to stand； and which might be reclaimed after the first occupant had relinquished possession？
〃Agriculture was a natural consequence of the multiplication of the human race； and agriculture； in its turn； favors population； and necessitates the establishment of permanent property； for who would take the trouble to plough and sow； if he were not certain that he would reap？〃
To satisfy the husbandman； it was sufficient to guarantee him possession of his crop； admit even that he should have been protected in his right of occupation of land； as long as he remained its cultivator。 That was all that he had a right to expect； that was all that th