what is property-第40节

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！


e　hands　of　the　occupant　into　those　of　the　proprietor　in　the　name　of　increase；　and　as　the　price　of　the　permission　to　occupy；　is　a　permanent　gain　for　the　latter；　and　a　dead　loss　and　annihilation　for　the　former；　to　whom　none　of　it　will　return；　save　in　the　forms　of　gift；　alms；　wages　paid　for　his　services；　or　the　price　of　merchandise　which　he　has　delivered。　　In　a　word；　increase　perishes　so　far　as　the　borrower　is　concerned；　or　to　use　the　more　energetic　Latin　phrase；_res　perit　solventi_。

3。　THE　RIGHT　OF　INCREASE　OPPRESSES　THE　PROPRIETOR　AS　WELL　AS　THE　STRANGER。　　The　master　of　a　thing；　as　its　proprietor；　levies　a　tax　for　the　use　of　his　property　upon　himself　as　its　possessor；　equal　to　that　which　he　would　receive　from　a　third　party；　so　that　capital　bears　interest　in　the　hands　of　the　capitalist；　as　well　as　in　those　of　the　borrower　and　the　commandite。　　If；　indeed；　rather　than　accept　a　rent　of　five　hundred　francs　for　my　apartment；　I　prefer　to　occupy　and　enjoy　it；　it　is　clear　that　I　shall　become　my　own　debtor　for　a　rent　equal　to　that　which　I　deny　myself。　　This　principle　is　universally　practised　in　business；　and　is　regarded　as　an　axiom　by　the　economists。　　Manufacturers；　also；　who　have　the　advantage　of　being　proprietors　of　their　floating　capital；　although　they　owe　no　interest　to　any　one；　in　calculating　their　profits　subtract　from　them；　not　only　their　running　expenses　and　the　wages　of　their　employees；　but　also　the　interest　on　their　capital。　　For　the　same　reason；　money…lenders　retain　in　their　own　possession　as　little　money　as　possible；　for；　since　all　capital　necessarily　bears　interest；　if　this　interest　is　supplied　by　no　one；　it　comes　out　of　the　capital；　which　is　to　that　extent　diminished。　　Thus；　by　the　right　of　increase；　capital　eats　itself　up。　　This　is；　doubtless；　the　idea　that　Papinius　intended　to　convey　in　the　phrase；　as　elegant　as　it　is　forcible_Foenus　mordet　solidam_。　　I　beg　pardon　for　using　Latin　so　frequently　in　discussing　this　subject；　it　is　an　homage　which　I　pay　to　the　most　usurious　nation　that　ever　existed。


FIRST　PROPOSITION。

Property　is　impossible；　because　it　demands　Something　for　Nothing。


The　discussion　of　this　proposition　covers　the　same　ground　as　that　of　the　origin　of　farm…rent；　which　is　so　much　debated　by　the　economists。　　When　I　read　the　writings　of　the　greater　part　of　these　men；　I　cannot　avoid　a　feeling　of　contempt　mingled　with　anger；　in　view　of　this　mass　of　nonsense；　in　which　the　detestable　vies　with　the　absurd。　　It　would　be　a　repetition　of　the　story　of　the　elephant　in　the　moon；　were　it　not　for　the　atrocity　of　the　consequences。　　To　seek　a　rational　and　legitimate　origin　of　that　which　is；　and　ever　must　be；　only　robbery；　extortion；　and　plunderthat　must　be　the　height　of　the　proprietor's　folly；　the　last　degree　of　bedevilment　into　which　minds；　otherwise　judicious；　can　be　thrown　by　the　perversity　of　selfishness。


〃A　farmer；〃　says　Say；　〃is　a　wheat　manufacturer　who；　among　other　tools　which　serve　him　in　modifying　the　material　from　which　he　makes　the　wheat；　employs　one　large　tool；　which　we　call　a　field。　　If　he　is　not　the　proprietor　of　the　field；　if　he　is　only　a　tenant；　he　pays　the　proprietor　for　the　productive　service　of　this　tool。　　The　tenant　is　reimbursed　by　the　purchaser；　the　latter　by　another；　until　the　product　reaches　the　consumer；　who　redeems　the　first　payment；　PLUS　all　the　others；　by　means　of　which　the　product　has　at　last　come　into　his　hands。〃


Let　us　lay　aside　the　subsequent　payments　by　which　the　product　reaches　the　consumer；　and；　for　the　present；　pay　attention　only　to　the　first　one　of　all；the　rent　paid　to　the　proprietor　by　the　tenant。　　On　what　ground；　we　ask；　is　the　proprietor　entitled　to　this　rent？

According　to　Ricardo；　MacCulloch；　and　Mill；　farm…rent；　properly　speaking；　is　simply　the　EXCESS　OF　THE　PRODUCT　OF　THE　MOST　FERTILE　LAND　OVER　THAT　OF　LANDS　OF　AN　INFERIOR　QUALITY；　so　that　farm…rent　is　not　demanded　for　the　former　until　the　increase　of　population　renders　necessary　the　cultivation　of　the　latter。

It　is　difficult　to　see　any　sense　in　this。　　How　can　a　right　to　the　land　be　based　upon　a　difference　in　the　quality　of　the　land？　　How　can　varieties　of　soil　engender　a　principle　of　legislation　and　politics？　　This　reasoning　is　either　so　subtle；　or　so　stupid；　that　the　more　I　think　of　it；　the　more　bewildered　I　become。　　Suppose　two　pieces　of　land　of　equal　area；　the　one；　A；　capable　of　supporting　ten　thousand　inhabitants；　the　other；　B；　capable　of　supporting　nine　thousand　only：　when；　owing　to　an　increase　in　their　number；　the　inhabitants　of　A　shall　be　forced　to　cultivate　B；　the　landed　proprietors　of　A　will　exact　from　their　tenants　in　A　a　rent　proportional　to　the　difference　between　ten　and　nine。　　So　say；　I　think；　Ricardo；　MacCulloch；　and　Mill。　　But　if　A　supports　as　many　inhabitants　as　it　can　contain；that　is；　if　the　inhabitants　of　A；　by　our　hypothesis；　have　only　just　enough　land　to　keep　them　alive；how　can　they　pay　farm…rent？

If　they　had　gone　no　farther　than　to　say　that　the　difference　in　land　has　OCCASIONED　farm…rent；　instead　of　CAUSED　it；　this　observation　would　have　taught　us　a　valuable　lesson；　namely；　that　farm…rent　grew　out　of　a　desire　for　equality。　　Indeed；　if　all　men　have　an　equal　right　to　the　possession　of　good　land；　no　one　can　be　forced　to　cultivate　bad　land　without　indemnification。　　Farm…　rentaccording　to　Ricardo；　MacCulloch；　and　Millwould　then　have　been　a　compensation　for　loss　and　hardship。　　This　system　of　practical　equality　is　a　bad　one；　no　doubt；　but　it　sprang　from　good　intentions。　　What　argument　can　Ricardo；　MacCulloch；　and　Mill　develop　therefrom　in　favor　of　property？　　Their　theory　turns　against　themselves；　and　strangles　them。

Malthus　thinks　that　farm…rent　has　its　source　in　the　power　possessed　by　land　of　producing　more　than　is　necessary　to　supply　the　wants　of　the　men　who　cultivate　it。　　I　would　ask　Malthus　why　successful　labor　should　entitle　the　idle　to　a　portion　of　the　products？

But　the　worthy　Malthus　is　mistaken　in　regard　to　the　fact。　　Yes；　land　has　the　power　of　producing　more　than　is　needed　by　those　who　cultivate　it；　if　by　CULTIVATORS　is　meant　tenants　only。　　The　tailor　also　makes　more　clothes　than　he　wears；　and　the　cabinet…　maker　more　furniture　than　he　uses。　　But；　since　the　various　professions　imply　and　sustain　one　another；　not　only　the　farmer；　but　the　followers　of　all　arts　and　tradeseven　to　the　doctor　and　the　school…teacherare；　and　ought　to　be；　regarded　as　CULTIVATORS　OF　THE　LAND。　　Malthus　bases　farm…rent　upon　the　principle　of　commerce。　　Now；　the　fundamental　law　of　commerce　being　equivalence　of　the　products　exchanged；　any　thing　which　destroys　this　equivalence　violates　the　law。　　There　is　an　error　in　the　estimate　which　needs　to　be　corrected。

Buchanana　commentator　on　Smithregarded　farm…rent　as　the　result　of　a　monopoly；　and　maintained　that　labor　alone　is　productive。　　Consequently；　he　thought　that；　without　this　monopoly；　products　would　rise　in　price；　and　he　found　no　basis　for　farm…rent　save　in　the　civil　law。　　This　opinion　is　a　corollary　of　that　which　makes　the　civil　law　the　basis　of　property。　　But　why　has　the　civil　lawwhich　ought　to　be　the　written　expression　of　justiceauthorized　this　monopoly？　　Whoever　says　monopoly；　necessarily　excludes　justice。　　Now；　to　say　that　farm…rent　is　a　monopoly　sanctioned　by　the　law；　is　to　say　that　injustice　is　based　on　justice；a　contradiction　in　terms。

Say　answers　Buchanan；　that　the　proprietor　is　not　a　monopolist；　because　a　monopolist　〃is　one　who　does　not　increase　the　utility　of　the　merchandise　which　passes　through　his　hands。〃

How　much　does　the　proprietor　increase　the　utility　of　his　tenant's　products？　　Has　he　ploughed；　sowed；　reaped；　mowed；　winnowed；　weeded？　　These　are　the　processes　by　which　the　tenant　and　his　employees　increase　the　utility　of　the　material　which　they　consume　for　the　purpose　of　reproduction。


〃The　landed　proprietor　increases　the　utility　of　products　by　means　of　his　implement；　the　land。　　This　implement　receives　in　one　state；　and　returns　in　another　the　materials　of　which　wheat　is　composed。　　The　action　of　the　land　is　a　chemical　process；　which　so　modifies　the　material　that　it　multiplies　it　by　destroying　it。　　The　soil　is　then　a　producer　of　utility；　and　when　it　＇the　soil？＇　asks　its　pay　in　the　form　of　profit；　or　farm　rent；　for　its　proprietor；　it　at　the　same　time　gives　something　to　the　consumer　in　exchange　for　the　amount　which　the　consumer　pays　it。　　It　gives　him　a　produced　utility；　and　it　is　the　production　of　this　utility　which　warrants　us　in　calling　land　productive；　as　well　as　labor。〃


Let　us　clear　up　this　matter。

The　blacksmith　who　manufactures　for　the　farmer　implements　of　husbandry；　the　wheelwright　who　makes　him　a　cart；　the　mason　who　builds　his　barn；　the　carpenter；　the　basket…maker；　&c。；all　of　whom　contribute　to　agricultural　production　by　the　tools　which　they　provide；are　producers　of　utility；　consequently；　they　are　entitled　to　a　part　of　the　products。


〃Undoubtedly；〃　says　Say；　〃but　the　land　also　is　an　implement　whose　service　must　be　paid　for；　then。　。　。　。〃


I　admit　that　the　land　is　an　implement；　but　who　made　it？　　Did　the　proprietor？　　Did　heby　the　efficacious　virtue　of　the　right　of　property；　by　this　MORAL　QUALITY　infused　into　the　soilendow　it　with　vigor　and　fertility？　　Exactly　there　lies　the　monopoly　of　the　proprietor；　in　the　fact　that；　though　he　d