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