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！
BELONG TO THE FIRST OCCUPANT； that occupation may be exercised by beings devoid of conscience and personality。 The human personality； though it may be the principle or the subject of property； as matter is the object； is not the CONDITION。 Now； it is this condition which we most need to know。 So far； M。 Troplong tells us no more than his masters； and the figures with which he adorns his style add nothing to the old idea。
Property； then； implies three terms： The subject； the object； and the condition。 There is no difficulty in regard to the first two terms。 As to the third； the condition of property down to this day； for the Greek as for the Barbarian； has been that of first occupancy。 What now would you have it； progressive doctor？
〃When man lays hands for the first time upon an object without a master； he performs an act which； among individuals； is of the greatest importance。 The thing thus seized and occupied participates； so to speak； in the personality of him who holds it。 It becomes sacred； like himself。 It is impossible to take it without doing violence to his liberty； or to remove it without rashly invading his person。 Diogenes did but express this truth of intuition； when he said： ‘Stand out of my light！'〃
Very good！ but would the prince of cynics； the very personal and very haughty Diogenes； have had the right to charge another cynic； as rent for this same place in the sunshine； a bone for twenty…four hours of possession？ It is that which constitutes the proprietor； it is that which you fail to justify。 In reasoning from the human personality and individuality to the right of property； you unconsciously construct a syllogism in which the conclusion includes more than the premises； contrary to the rules laid down by Aristotle。 The individuality of the human person proves INDIVIDUAL POSSESSION； originally called _proprietas_； in opposition to collective possession； _communio_。
It gives birth to the distinction between THINE and MINE； true signs of equality； not； by any means； of subordination。 〃From equivocation to equivocation；〃 says M。 Michelet；＇1＇ 〃property would crawl to the end of the world； man could not limit it； were not he himself its limit。 Where they clash； there will be its frontier。〃 In short； individuality of being destroys the hypothesis of communism； but it does not for that reason give birth to domain；that domain by virtue of which the holder of a thing exercises over the person who takes his place a right of prestation and suzerainty； that has always been identified with property itself。
＇1＇ 〃Origin of French Law。〃
Further； that he whose legitimately acquired possession injures nobody cannot be nonsuited without flagrant injustice； is a truth； not of INTUITION； as M。 Troplong says； but of INWARD SENSATION；＇1＇ which has nothing to do with property。
＇1＇ To honor one's parents； to be grateful to one's benefactors； to neither kill nor steal；truths of inward sensation。 To obey God rather than men； to render to each that which is his； the whole is greater than a part； a straight line is the shortest road from one point to another；truths of intuition。 All are a priori but the first are felt by the conscience； and imply only a simple act of the soul； the second are perceived by the reason； and imply comparison and relation。 In short； the former are sentiments； the latter are ideas。
M。 Troplong admits； then； occupancy as a condition of property。 In that； he is in accord with the Roman law； in accord with MM。 Toullier and Duranton； but in his opinion this condition is not the only one； and it is in this particular that his doctrine goes beyond theirs。
〃But； however exclusive the right arising from sole occupancy； does it not become still more so； when man has moulded matter by his labor； when he has deposited in it a portion of himself； re… creating it by his industry； and setting upon it the seal of his intelligence and activity？ Of all conquests； that is the most legitimate； for it is the price of labor。
He who should deprive a man of the thing thus remodelled； thus humanized； would invade the man himself； and would inflict the deepest wounds upon his liberty。〃
I pass over the very beautiful explanations in which M。 Troplong； discussing labor and industry； displays the whole wealth of his eloquence。 M。 Troplong is not only a philosopher； he is an orator； an artist。 HE ABOUNDS WITH APPEALS TO THE CONSCIENCE AND THE PASSIONS。 I might make sad work of his rhetoric； should I undertake to dissect it； but I confine myself for the present to his philosophy。
If M。 Troplong had only known how to think and reflect； before abandoning the original fact of occupancy and plunging into the theory of labor； he would have asked himself： 〃What is it to occupy？〃 And he would have discovered that OCCUPANCY is only a generic term by which all modes of possession are expressed； seizure； station； immanence； habitation； cultivation； use； consumption； &c。； that labor； consequently； is but one of a thousand forms of occupancy。 He would have understood； finally； that the right of possession which is born of labor is governed by the same general laws as that which results from the simple seizure of things。 What kind of a legist is he who declaims when he ought to reason； who continually mistakes his metaphors for legal axioms； and who does not so much as know how to obtain a universal by induction； and form a category？
If labor is identical with occupancy； the only benefit which it secures to the laborer is the right of individual possession of the object of his labor； if it differs from occupancy； it gives birth to a right equal only to itself；that is； a right which begins； continues； and ends； with the labor of the occupant。 It is for this reason； in the words of the law； that one cannot acquire a just title to a thing by labor alone。 He must also hold it for a year and a day； in order to be regarded as its possessor； and possess it twenty or thirty years； in order to become its proprietor。
These preliminaries established； M。 Troplong's whole structure falls of its own weight； and the inferences； which he attempts to draw； vanish。
〃Property once acquired by occupation and labor； it naturally preserves itself； not only by the same means； but also by the refusal of the holder to abdicate； for from the very fact that it has risen to the height of a right； it is its nature to perpetuate itself and to last for an indefinite period。 。 。 。 Rights； considered from an ideal point of view； are imperishable and eternal； and time； which affects only the contingent； can no more disturb them than it can injure God himself。〃 It is astonishing that our author； in speaking of the IDEAL； TIME； and ETERNITY； did not work into his sentence the DIVINE WINGS of Plato；so fashionable to…day in philosophical works。
With the exception of falsehood； I hate nonsense more than any thing else in the world。 PROPERTY ONCE ACQUIRED！ Good； if it is acquired； but； as it is not acquired； it cannot be preserved。 RIGHTS ARE ETERNAL！ Yes； in the sight of God； like the archetypal ideas of the Platonists。 But； on the earth； rights exist only in the presence of a subject； an object； and a condition。 Take away one of these three things； and rights no longer exist。 Thus； individual possession ceases at the death of the subject； upon the destruction of the object； or in case of exchange or abandonment。
Let us admit； however； with M。 Troplong； that property is an absolute and eternal right； which cannot be destroyed save by the deed and at the will of the proprietor。 What are the consequences which immediately follow from this position？
To show the justice and utility of prescription； M。 Troplong supposes the case of a bona fide possessor whom a proprietor； long since forgotten or even unknown； is attempting to eject from his possession。 〃At the start； the error of the possessor was excusable but not irreparable。 Pursuing its course and growing old by degrees； it has so completely clothed itself in the colors of truth； it has spoken so loudly the language of right； it has involved so many confiding interests； that it fairly may be asked whether it would not cause greate