ing thereafter to each laborer the care of his own person； after the eternal axiom： WHOSO DOES WELL； SHALL FARE WELL。
The philosopher Reid is lacking； not in knowledge of the principle； but in courage to pursue it to its ultimate。 If the right of life is equal； the right of labor is equal； and so is the right of occupancy。 Would it not be criminal； were some islanders to repulse； in the name of property； the unfortunate victims of a shipwreck struggling to reach the shore？ The very idea of such cruelty sickens the imagination。 The proprietor； like Robinson Crusoe on his island； wards off with pike and musket the proletaire washed overboard by the wave of civilization； and seeking to gain a foothold upon the rocks of property。 〃Give me work！〃 cries he with all his might to the proprietor： 〃don't drive me away； I will work for you at any price。〃 〃I do not need your services；〃 replies the proprietor； showing the end of his pike or the barrel of his gun。 〃Lower my rent at least。〃 〃I need my income to live upon。〃 〃How can I pay you； when I can get no work？〃 〃That is your business。〃 Then the unfortunate proletaire abandons himself to the waves； or； if he attempts to land upon the shore of property； the proprietor takes aim； and kills him。
We have just listened to a spiritualist； we will now question a materialist； then an eclectic： and having completed the circle of philosophy； we will turn next to law。
According to Destutt de Tracy； property is a necessity of our nature。 That this necessity involves unpleasant consequences； it would be folly to deny。 But these consequences are necessary evils which do not invalidate the principle； so that it as unreasonable to rebel against property on account of the abuses which it generates； as to complain of life because it is sure to end in death。 This brutal and pitiless philosophy promises at least frank and close reasoning。 Let us see if it keeps its promise。
〃We talk very gravely about the conditions of property； 。 。 。 as if it was our province to decide what constitutes property。 。 。 。 It would seem； to hear certain philosophers and legislators； that at a certain moment； spontaneously and without cause； people began to use the words THINE and MINE； and that they might have； or ought to have； dispensed with them。 But THINE and MINE were never invented。〃
A philosopher yourself； you are too realistic。 THINE and MINE do not necessarily refer to self； as they do when I say your philosophy； and my equality； for your philosophy is you philosophizing； and my equality is I professing equality。 THINE and MINE oftener indicate a relation；YOUR country； YOUR parish； YOUR tailor； YOUR milkmaid； MY chamber； MY seat at the theatre； MY company and MY battalion in the National Guard。 In the former sense； we may sometimes say MY labor； MY skill； MY virtue； never MY grandeur nor MY majesty： in the latter sense only； MY field； MY house； MY vineyard； MY capital；precisely as the banker's clerk says MY cash…box。 In short； THINE and MINE are signs and expressions of personal； but equal； rights； applied to things outside of us； they indicate possession； function； use； not property。
It does not seem possible； but； nevertheless； I shall prove； by quotations； that the whole theory of our author is based upon this paltry equivocation。
〃Prior to all covenants； men are； not exactly； as Hobbes says； in a state of HOSTILITY； but of ESTRANGEMENT。 In this state； justice and injustice are unknown； the rights of one bear no relation to the rights of another。 All have as many rights as needs； and all feel it their duty to satisfy those needs by any means at their command。〃
Grant it； whether true or false； it matters not。 Destutt de Tracy cannot escape equality。 On this theory； men； while in a state of ESTRANGEMENT； are under no obligations to each other； they all have the right to satisfy their needs without regard to the needs of others； and consequently the right to exercise their power over Nature； each according to his strength and ability。 That involves the greatest inequality of wealth。 Inequality of conditions； then； is the characteristic feature of estrangement or barbarism： the exact opposite of Rousseau's idea。
But let us look farther：
〃Restrictions of these rights and this duty commence at the time when covenants； either implied or expressed； are agreed upon。 Then appears for the first time justice and injustice； that is； the balance between the rights of one and the rights of another； which up to that time were necessarily equal。〃
Listen： RIGHTS WERE EQUAL； that means that each individual had the right to SATISFY HIS NEEDS WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE NEEDS OF OTHERS。 In other words； that all had the right to injure each other； that there was no right save force and cunning。 They injured each other； not only by war and pillage； but also by usurpation and appropriation。 Now； in order to abolish this equal right to use force and stratagem；this equal right to do evil； the sole source of the inequality of benefits and injuries；they commenced to make COVENANTS EITHER IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED； and established a balance。 Then these agreements and this balance were intended to secure to all equal comfort； then； by the law of contradictions； if isolation is the principle of inequality； society must produce equality。 The social balance is the equalization of the strong and the weak； for； while they are not equals； they are strangers； they can form no associations； they live as enemies。 Then； if inequality of conditions is a necessary evil； so is isolation； for society and inequality are incompatible with each other。 Then； if society is the true condition of man's existence； so is equality also。 This conclusion cannot be avoided。
This being so； how is it that； ever since the establishment of this balance； inequality has been on the increase？ How is it that justice and isolation always accompany each other？ Destutt de Tracy shall reply：
〃NEEDS and MEANS； RIGHTS and DUTIES； are products of the will。 If man willed nothing； these would not exist。 But to have needs and means； rights and duties； is to HAVE； to POSSESS； something。 They are so many kinds of property； using the word in its most general sense： they are things which belong to us。〃
Shameful equivocation； not justified by the necessity for generalization！ The word PROPERTY has two meanings： 1。 It designates the quality which makes a thing what it is； the attribute which is peculiar to it； and especially distinguishes it。 We use it in this sense when we say THE PROPERTIES OF THE TRIANGLE or of NUMBERS； THE PROPERTY OF THE MAGNET； &c。 2。 It expresses the right of absolute control over a thing by a free and intelligent being。 It is used in this sense by writers on jurisprudence。 Thus； in the phrase； IRON ACQUIRES THE PROPERTY OF A MAGNET； the word PROPERTY does not convey the same idea that it does in this one： I HAVE ACQUIRED THIS MAGNET AS MY PROPERTY_。 To tell a poor man that he HAS property because he HAS arms and legs；that the hunger from which he suffers； and his power to sleep in the open air are his property；is to play upon words； and to add insult to injury。
〃The sole basis of the idea of property is the idea of personality。 As soon as property is born at all； it is born； of necessity； in all its fulness。 As soon as an individual knows HIMSELF；his moral personality； his capacities of enjoyment； suffering； and action；he necessarily sees also that this SELF is exclusive proprietor of the body in which it dwells； its organs； their powers； faculties； &c。 。 。 。 Inasmuch as artificial and conventional property exists； there must be natural property also； for nothing can exist in art without its counterpart in Nature。〃
We ought to admire the honesty and judgment of philosophers！ Man has properties； that is； in the first acceptation of the term； faculties。 He has property； that is； in its second acceptation； the right of domain。 He has； then； the property of the property of being proprietor。 How ashamed I should be to notice such foolishness； were I here considering only the authority of Destutt de Tracy！ But the entire human race； since the origination of society and language； when metaphysics and dialectics were first born； has been guilty of this puerile confusion of thought。 All which man could call his own was identified in his mind with his person。 He considered it as his property； his wealth； a part of himself； a member of his body； a faculty of his mind。 The possession of things was likened to property in the powers of the body and mind； and on this false analogy was based the right of property；THE IMITATION OF NATURE BY ART； as Destutt de Tracy so elegantly puts it。
But why did not this ideologist perceive that man is not proprietor even of his own faculties？ Man has powers； attributes； capacities； they are given him by Nature that he may live； learn； and love： he does not own them； but has only the use of them； and he can make no use of them that does not harmonize with Nature's laws。 If he had absolute mastery over his faculties； he could avoid hunger and cold； he could eat unstintedly； and walk through fire； he could move mountains； walk a hundred leag