government theory

Chapter 30 On Property (1)
25．From the aspect of natural rationality: human beings have the right to live from birth, so they can enjoy meat and drink and other items provided by nature to maintain their existence; from the aspect of God's revelation, God gave Adam the things in the world , Noah and his sons; obviously, as King David said ("Old Testament" Psalm 110 No. 16), God "gives the land to the world" for mankind to share.But even assuming this is the case, some people seem to find it difficult to understand: how can it be possible for everyone to have property rights in everything?I do not find it satisfactory to answer that if it is difficult to understand property rights on the assumption that God gave the world to Adam and his Heir and to the exclusion of the other descendants of Adam, no one but the sole sovereign of the world could have any property.But I am about to try to show how, without the express agreement of the whole world, men can make their property some of that which God has given to man in common.

26．God not only gave the world to mankind in common, but also gave them reason to use for the convenience of life.The land, and everything in it, is given to men for their subsistence and comfort.Since all the naturally produced fruits and living beasts on the land are naturally produced spontaneously, they should be shared by human beings, so no one has exclusive private ownership of these natural resources; however, since these are For human use, it must be appropriated for private use in some way, and then it can be useful or beneficial to a certain person.The savage Indians didn't know how to use the land, so they were still residents of the unowned land. Therefore, they could only keep the venison or fruits that fed themselves as their own, that is, as part of their private property, and others could no longer enjoy them. Any right is good for keeping them alive.

27．Though the land and all the lower animals are common to all, yet each has a property in his own person, and no one but himself has such a right.The fruits of the labors of his body and the labors of his hands, we may say, rightly belong to him.So whenever he removes anything from the state in which nature has arranged it, he has used his labor, added to it something of his own, and thus made it his property.Since it is he who removes the thing from the ordinary state in which nature has placed it, his labor adds to it something which negates the common ownership of others.As labor is the indisputable property of the laborer, no one but he can have property in what is increased, at least so long as there is enough of the same good left for others to share in common. Now, that's how it is.

28．When a man feeds himself with the acorns he gathers under the oak, or the apples he plucks from the trees in the woods, he has indeed appropriated them for his own use.No one can deny that food is entirely his own.But what I want to ask is: since when did these things belong to him?When he digests, when he eats, when he cooks, when he brings them home, or when he picks them up?Obviously, if the initial acquisition did not make them his, other actions would be much less likely.Human labor distinguishes them from the commons, adds something to nature, the mother of all things, to what has already been done, and thus makes them his private property.

Who will say that, because he has made an acorn or an apple his property without the consent of all mankind, he has no right to such appropriation!Should this act of ascribing to oneself what belongs to all be theft?If the answer is yes, then, although God has given people a lot of things, human beings have already starved to death.We see in commons maintained by contract, that property begins by taking a part of the common thing out of the state in which nature has placed it; otherwise the common thing would be of little use. .The part taken out does not depend on the express consent of all co-owners.Thus the grass my horses graze, the turf my servants cut, and the ore I dig out where I share a claim with others, becomes my property without the humility or consent of any man.My labor removes them from the state of common ownership in which they were, and establishes my property right over them.

29．If it were a rule that any one who appropriated a part of a common thing for private use had to obtain the express consent of each co-owner, then children could not cut off what their father had prepared for them in common but did not specify. Each had his share of the meat, and servants could not cut off the meat that their master had prepared for them in common, without specifying their share.Although the water from the spring is everyone's share, no one doubts that the water in the jug belongs only to the drawer.The labor of the drawer takes it out of nature, and thus appropriates it to his own use, but while it is in nature's hands it is common, and belongs to all equally.

30．By this law of reason, therefore, the Indians keep for themselves the deer they kill; and when labor is exercised on things, even things which were originally a common right to all become his property.Determination of property rights is considered part of civilization when man has enacted and enacted statutes to ascertain it, and the law of nature (the original law concerning the creation of property rights in things formerly in common) still applies.From this point of view, the fish caught by all men, or the ambergris gathered there, in the vast seas common to mankind, is, by the labor exerted by the labourer, removed from it, which nature originally gave it. common state of placement, so that these things become the property of whoever labors on them.Any one of us whoever chases a hare in a paddock is considered to be his.Because wild animals are also considered to be in common and not in anyone's private property, as long as anyone is willing to expend labor to find these animals and chase them, he takes them out of their original natural common status, and thus begins to become a kind of property for him.

31．Some may disagree with this statement, and think that if he can gather acorns, or other fruits of the land, etc., he can make these things his own property, and any one can take as much as he will.I don't think so.Even the same natural law, which on the one hand gives us the right of property, also limits it on the other. Chapter 6No.17 of "New Testament - [-] Timothy" records: "God has given us all things to enjoy." This is the voice of reason confirmed by God's revelation.But where does God limit our possessions?It will be limited to our enjoyment.He who can use a thing to satisfy the needs of life as much as possible before it spoils, he can use his labor to determine his property right in this thing within that limit. owned by others.God did not create things for people to spoil or corrupt.Therefore, we should consider such a situation: that is, for a long period of time, the world is rich in natural materials and there are few consumers, but the materials (especially There should be little dispute or dispute over property so fixed, so far as rational prescriptions can afford him.

32．But though the principal objects of property are now not only the fruits which the land produces, and the beasts which depend on it, but the land itself with all other things, yet I think that the acquisition of landed property is the same as before.The amount of land he can own is determined by how much he can plow, sow, improve, cultivate, and use the products of the land.It's as if he used his labor to get the land from the commons circle.Even if others have the same right to it, he cannot appropriate it for private use and enclose the land without the consent of all his co-owners (that is, all mankind), but this statement does not make him rights lapse.When God gave the world to all mankind, he also commanded man to work, and man's poverty required him to work.God and man's reason together direct him to cultivate the land, that is, to improve it for the needs of life, and thereby to apply to it what is his own, namely, labor.Whoever, in obedience to God's command, clears, plows, and sows any part of the land, adds to it something that was his own, which no one else has a right to claim, and which, if taken, would be will cause damage.

33．This reclamation of any piece of land and appropriation of it does not harm any other, for there remains much more equally good land than can be used by those who have not yet acquired it.Therefore, in fact, because one person encloses land, the land left to others will not be greatly reduced.The reason for this is that a man who leaves enough land for others to use is as if he had gained nothing.No one feels himself injured by the fact that another man drinks a great deal, because he has a whole river of the same water left to quench his thirst; and as far as land and water are concerned, as both are sufficient, the case is totally consistent.

(End of this chapter)