.
CHAPTER V
Jorge. - As I recall, Mr. Judge, we left the conversation at the right of ownership.
Ambrosio. - Indeed. And I am really curious to hear him defend in the name of justice and law, its purposes of plunder and pillage.
A society in which nobody's sure thing, do not be a society, but a horde of wolves, always ready to devour each other.
Jorge. - Are not you think that's what happens today?
You accuse us of wanting to plunder and rapine, but, in contrast, are not the owners who continually plunder the workers and taken away the fruits of their labor?
Ambrosio. - The owners use their property as they see fit and have the right to do so, just as workers have their arms free. Employers and workers freely contracting the price of the work, and when the contract is not violated, none has the right to complain.
The charity may alleviate the pain too acute, undeserved suffering, but the law must remain intangible.
Jorge. - But what do you think of free contract! If the worker does not work, eat, and freedom is like the traveler assaulted by the robbers, which gives the bag so you will not take their lives.
Ambrosio. - Let's admit it, but why not be denied the right to every man to have his own as he pleases.
Jorge. - Theirs, yours! But how and why they can tell the landowner that the land and the products are and how you can call his own goods to the capitalist working tools and other capital created by human activity?
Ambrosio. - The law recognizes the right.
Jorge. - Ah! If it is just that, then the robber also may have the right to kill and steal, just have to make some articles of the law that recognize that right. And, moreover, that is precisely what has made the ruling classes have made the law to enshrine the encroachments already perpetrated, or as a means for new ones.
If all your "supreme principles" are based on codes, simply that tomorrow a bill decreeing the abolition of private property, and what you call robbery and burglary suddenly become a "supreme principle."
Ambrosio. - That's not possible, the law must be fair and must comply with the principles of law and morality, and not the result of a whim unchecked, otherwise ...
Jorge. - So is the law that creates the right, but the law that justifies the law. So what is the law according to which all existing wealth, both natural and created by the man's work belongs to a few individuals and gives them the right of life and death over the rest?
Ambrosio. - is the right of that every man should have to dispose of the product of their activity. It is a natural human feeling, without which civilization would not have been possible at all.
Jorge. - Well, here's how it becomes an advocate for labor rights. Excellent, but tell me, how is it that those who work are those who have nothing, while the property belongs precisely to those who do not work?
Do not you think that it is logical to treat the current owners as usurpers, and that justice would be necessary to expropriate to return wealth to its rightful owners, the workers?
Ambrosio. - If there are owners who do not work is because they have worked before, they or their ancestors, and had the virtue of saving and ingenuity to make good savings.
Jorge. - Sure ... you imagine a worker who earns just generally for food, saving and amassing wealth.
You know perfectly well that the origin of property is violence, robbery, theft legal or illegal. But let there who have managed to save money on the product of their work, their own personal work, if you want to enjoy later, when and how you look, there is no objection. But the picture changes completely when you start looking what you call: make good use of savings. That means doing work for others and steal some of his work, it means hoarding goods and sell them more expensive than they cost, it means creating artificially high prices to speculate on it, means removing the other ways of working to live freely, to force them to work for little pay. And many other things like that and have nothing to do with the sense of justice and show that the property, when not derived from the prey frank and open, it makes work of others.
Does it seem to you just a man that's give with their work and ingenuity has put together a little capital, can then steal the other the product of their work and also provide all their descendants the right to live idle at the expense of workers?
Does it seem fair that because men have been a few workers and savers who have accumulated capital, the rest of humanity should be condemned to perpetual misery and brutalization?
On the other hand, although one has achieved only through their efforts, have a lot of resources so it could not be allowed to cause harm to others, to remove the media of life. If someone made a road along the coast, why could not claim the right to deny others access to the sea. If someone could grow alone an entire province could not condemn the hunger so all its inhabitants. If you have created new and powerful means of production would not be entitled to use his invention to subject the rest of men, let alone, to associate all his descendants the right to dominate and exploit future generations.
Apart from that, how can you expect, even for a moment that the current owners are descendants of workers or employees? Would you like to explain the origin of wealth of all the lords of our country, the nobles of old stock and the new managers?
Ambrosio. - No, no, please let us put aside personal issues. If ill-gotten wealth, this is not a reason to deny the right of ownership. Let bygones be bygones and start looking useless for centuries.
Jorge. - Do not remove, if desired. For me the thing is not important. Separate property must be abolished, not only because it may have been more or less ill-gotten, but because it gives the right and means to exploit the labor of others and always end up putting most of the men under the will of a few.
But, by the way, how can you justify individual ownership of land with his theory of saving, when it can not be said to have been produced by the work of the owners or their ancestors?
Ambrosio. - Here's the question. Uncultivated land, barren, worthless. The man in question, the pay, makes it fruitful and, of course, is entitled to the fruits that without his work would not have occurred.
Jorge. - Ideally, this is the right of workers to the fruits of their labor, but that right ends just ceases to farm the land. Do not you think?
Now, how is that current owners have territories, often huge, that does not work for themselves, who have never worked and often do not even leave work to others? How is that few have ever been cultivated lands? What kind of work may have resulted, in this case, the right to property?
The truth is that the land and further the origin of property is violence. And you can not justify it if it is not accepting the principle that law is force, in which case ... Woe to you if one day are weaker!
Ambrosio. - In any case, you miss the social utility, the inherent requirements of the civil partnership. Without property rights there would be no job security or orderly, and society would dissolve into chaos.
Jorge. - What! Now I talk about social utility? But if in our first conversation I spoke of the evils that property produces, and you reminded me of the question of abstract right!
But just for tonight. Excuse me, I go. Speak again.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment