In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Seventh Chapter Further discussion of the principle set forth here concerning the right to property As I intend to bring this section to a close, drawing together the most remarkable of its results into a single point, I feel that I must still provide some further elucidation of the chief proposition, since it is with this that the entire theory stands or falls. I have reserved this till the end, so as not to interrupt the quick progress of the previous investigations. The chief results of the theory set forth are as follows: in a state existing in accordance with the law of Right the three chief estates of the nation are calculated in proportion to one another and each is limited to a set number of members. A relative share of all the country’s produce and manufactured goods is guaranteed to each citizen in return for the work expected of him, and likewise to every public official, although in this case without a visible equivalent. To this end it will be necessary to fix and ensure the value of all things relative to one another and their price in money. And finally, if all this is to be possible, all direct trade between citizens and abroad must be rendered impossible. All these assertions are founded on my theory of property. If this theory of property is correct, then, without doubt, there will also be good reason for these assertions. If the theory of property is false, then that which claims to be nothing more than a consequence of the theory of property will no doubt fall together with it. Yet it is precisely in the theory of property that concepts are in cir‑ culation [85] deviating very much from mine. Thus I must at any rate fear from many readers that they will not find my reasoning convincing, for there will certainly be many among them who openly profess these different concepts, or are at least darkly led by them. I must {441} once again invite these readers to submit to proof both my principle and those principles that either deviate from it, or are wholly contrary. In my opinion the fundamental error of the opposed theory of prop‑ erty—the first source from which all false assertions about property derive; 129 130 First Book the true reason for the obscurity and oversubtlety of many doctrines; and what is, properly understood, the cause of their one‑sidedness and incomplete‑ ness when applied to actual life—is this: that one posits the first, original property in the exclusive possession of a thing. With such a view holding sway, it is no wonder that we have even experienced a theory claiming that the estate of large landholders, or the nobility, is the only true pro‑ prietor, the only citizen from which a state is formed, and that all others are mere accessories [Beisassen] who must buy the toleration of the former under whatever condition pleases them. This, I say, is no wonder, since of all things it is land and soil that most visibly become property and most rigorously exclude all foreign admixture. In opposition to this theory, our theory posits the first and original property, the basis of all others, in an exclusive right to a determinate free activity. This free activity can be determinable, and determined (described, characterized, named), in one of three ways. Either solely through the object that it acts upon. This is the case, for example, with the right to undertake whatever one may wish in and with a certain area and keep the rest of the human race from modifying this area in any way. Figuratively and derivatively, this area could at any rate itself be called the property of the one who has been granted the right, though strictly speaking his property consists solely in his exclusive right to every possible modification of this area. In actual life I am not familiar with any example of such an unlimited right to property. Or, secondly, this free activity is determined only through itself, through its own form (its kind and manner, its purpose, and so forth), without any [86] regard to the object that it acts upon: the right to conduct exclusively a {442} certain art (to manufacture clothing, shoes, and the like for oth‑ ers) and to keep everyone else from practicing the same art. Here we have property without the possession of any kind of thing. Or finally, this free activity is...

Share