用户名: 密码: 验证码:    注册 | 忘记密码?
主页 |英文小说 |双语传记 |双语戏剧 |双语文史哲 |双语儿童文学 |双语科技 |经典英译 |其他双语名著 |会员中心| 每日听力| 网络电台| 在线词典| 听力论坛| 听力论坛| 听力论坛| 听力论坛| 在线听写
当前位置:大乐透走势图浙江 > 双语哲学 > 社会契约论 > 第9章 第一卷
第10节 第九章 论财产权 【
   已开启划词功能

本文地址:http://www.dmhes.com.cn/book/1/22-752-dijiuzhang_luncaichanquan.html
文章摘要:第九章 论财产权 ,公海高价股挑逗,千方相交整车厂。

    集体的每个成员,在集体形成的那一瞬间,便把那时实际情况下所存在的自己......他本身及其全部力量,而他所享有的财富也构成其中的一部分......奉献了集体.这并非说,由于这一行为,享有权就在转手之际会改变性质而成为主权者手中的所有权;然而城邦的力量既是无可伦比地要大于个人的力量,所以公众的享有权虽然没有更大的合法性,......至少对于外邦人是如此,......但实际上却更为强而有力和更为不可变更.因为就国家对它的成员而言,国家因为有构成国家中一切权利的基础的社会契约,便成为他们所有财富的主人;但就国家对其他国家来说,则国家只是因为它从个人那里所得来的最先占有人的权利,才成为财富的主人的.
   
    最初占有者的权利,虽然要比最强者的权利更真实点,但也只有在财产权确立之后,才能成为真正的权利.每个人都生而有权取得为自己所必备的一切;但是使他成为某项财富的所有者这一积极行为,便排除了他对其余全部财富的所有权.他的那份一经确定,他就应该以此为限,并且对集体不能再有其它更多的权利.这就是何以原来在自然状态中是如此脆弱的最初占有者的权利,却不能备受一切社会人尊敬的缘故了.人们尊重这种权利的,更多地倒是并不属于自己所有的事物,而是别人所有的事物.
  
    一般说来,要认可对于某块土地的最初占有者的权利,就必须具备以下的条件:首先,这块土地还不曾有人居住;其次,人们只能占有为维持自己的生存所必备的数量;第三,人们占有这块土地不能凭一种空洞的形式,而是要凭劳动与耕耘,这是在缺乏法理根据时,所有权能受到尊重的唯一标志.
   
    事实上,授予需要与劳动以最初占有者的权利,不就已经把这类权利扩展到最大限度了吗?难道对于这一权利可以不加限制吗?难道插足于一块公众的土地之上,就足以立刻自封为这块土地的主人了吗?难道由于有力量把别人自这块土地上暂时赶走,就可以永远剥夺别人重新回来的权利了吗?一个人或者一个民族如不是用该遭惩罚的篡夺手段,......因为他们对其他的人夺去了大自然所共同赋予大家的居住地和生活品,......又怎么能够夺取并剥夺全人类的广大土地呢?当努涅兹.巴尔波在海边上以卡斯提王冕的名义宣称占领南太平洋和整个南美洲的时候,这难道就足以剥夺那里全体居民的土地并把全世界的君主都排斥在外了吗?但是就在这个立足点上,这种仪式却枉然无益地再三为人们所效颦;而那位天主教的国王在他的暖阁里只需一举就占有了全世界,只要随后把别的君主已经占有的地方划入他自己的帝国版图就成了.
  
    我们可以想象,各个人毗邻的和相联的土地是如何变成公共的土地的,以及主权权利从臣民自身扩大到臣民所占有的土地时,又如何变成为既是对于实物的而同时又是对于人身的权利;这就使得土地占有者们陷于更深的依附地位,并且把他们力量的本身转化为令他们效忠的保证.这种便宜似乎古代的国君们没有很好地感觉到,他们仅只称为波斯人的王.塞种人的王或是马其顿人的王,好像他们自认为是人民的首领而不是国土的主人.今天的国王们就聪明得多地自称是法兰西王.西班牙王.英格兰王,等等;这样,他们就既占有土地,同时又确实领有土地上的居民.
   
    这种转让所具有的唯一特点是:集体在接受个人财产时远不是剥夺个人的财富,而只是保证他们自己对财富的合法占有,使据有变成为一种真正的权利,使享用变成为所有权.于是享有者便由于一种既对公众有利.也更对利于自身的割让行为而被人认为是公共财富的保管者,他们的权利受到国家全体成员的尊重,并且受到国家的全力保护以防御外邦人;所以可以说,他们是获得了他们所奉献出的一切.只要区分了主权者与所有者对同一块地产所具有的不同权利,这个两难推论是不难解释的,这一点我们在后面就可以看到.
   
    可能也有这种情形:人们在还未享有任何土地之前,就已经开始相结合了,然后再去占据一块足敷全体之用的土地;他们或者共同享用这块土地,或是彼此平分或按主权者所规定的比例来加以划分.无论用何种方式进行这种侵占,各个人对于他自己那块地产所具有的权利,都永远要从属于集体对于所有的人所拥有的权利;若没这点,社会的联系就不能巩固,而主权的行使也就不存在实际的力量.
   
    现在我就要指出构成全部社会体系的基础,以结束本章与本卷:那即是,基本公约并没有毁灭自然的平等,反而是以道德的与法律的平等来代替自然所导致的人与人之间的身体上的不平等;因而,人们尽可以在力量与才智上不平等,但是由于约定而且依据权利,他们却是人人平等的.

EACH member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses. This act does not make possession, in changing hands, change its nature, and become property in the hands of the Sovereign; but, as the forces of the city are incomparably greater than those of an individual, public possession is also, in fact,
stronger and more irrevocable, without being any more legitimate, at any rate from the point of view of foreigners. For the State, in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members.

The right of the first occupier, though more real than the right of the strongest, becomes a real right only when the right of property has already been established. Every man has naturally a right to everything he needs; but the positive act which makes him proprietor of one thing
excludes him from everything else. Having his share, he ought to keep to it, and can have no further right against the community. This is why the right of the first occupier, which in the state of nature is so weak, claims the respect of every man in civil society. In this right we are respecting not so much what belongs to another as what does not belong to ourselves.

In general, to establish the right of the first occupier over a plot of ground, the following conditions are necessary: first, the land must not
yet be inhabited; secondly, a man must occupy only the amount he needs for his subsistence; and, in the third place, possession must be taken, not by an empty ceremony, but by labour and cultivation, the only sign of proprietorship that should be respected by others, in default of a legal title.

In granting the right of first occupancy to necessity and labour, are we not really stretching it as far as it can go? Is it possible to leave such a right unlimited? Is it to be enough to set foot on a plot of common ground, in order to be able to call yourself at once the master
of it? Is it to be enough that a man has the strength to expel others for a moment, in order to establish his right to prevent them from ever
returning? How can a man or a people seize an immense territory and keep it from the rest of the world except by a punishable usurpation, since all others are being robbed, by such an act, of the place of habitation and the means of subsistence which nature gave them in common? When
Nunez Balboa, standing on the sea-shore, took possession of the South Seas and the whole of South America in the name of the crown of Castile, was that enough to dispossess all their actual inhabitants, and to shut out from them all the princes of the world? On such a showing, these ceremonies are idly multiplied, and the Catholic King need only take possession all at once, from his apartment, of the whole universe,
merely making a subsequent reservation about what was already in the possession of other princes.

We can imagine how the lands of individuals, where they were contiguous and came to be united, became the public territory, and how the right of Sovereignty, extending from the subjects over the lands they held, became at once real and personal. The possessors were thus made more dependent, and the forces at their command used to guarantee their fidelity. The advantage of this does not seem to have been felt by ancient monarchs, who called themselves Kings of the Persians, Scythians, or Macedonians, and seemed to regard themselves more as rulers of men than as masters of a country. Those of the present day more cleverly call themselves Kings of France, Spain, England, etc.: thus holding the land, they are quite confident of holding the inhabitants.

The peculiar fact about this alienation is that, in taking over the goods of individuals, the community, so far from despoiling them, only assures them legitimate possession, and changes usurpation into a true right and enjoyment into proprietorship. Thus the possessors, being regarded as depositaries of the public good, and having their rights respected by all the members of the State and maintained against foreign aggression by all its forces, have, by a cession which benefits both the public and still more themselves, acquired, so to speak, all that they gave up. This paradox may easily be explained by the distinction between the rights which the Sovereign and the proprietor have over the same estate, as we shall see later on.

It may also happen that men begin to unite one with another before they possess anything, and that, subsequently occupying a tract of country which is enough for all, they enjoy it in common, or share it out among themselves, either equally or according to a scale fixed by the Sovereign. However the acquisition be made, the right which each individual has to his own estate is always subordinate to the right which the community has over all: without this, there would be neither stability in the social tie, nor real force in the exercise of Sovereignty.

I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right.[5]

incomparably,proprietor,proprietorship,default,occupancy,expel,immense


香港2018一肖中特 重庆幸运农场时间 ub8优游娱乐平台 重庆时时彩定位胆技巧杀号 天津时时彩官网
爱彩乐十一选五 苹果版重庆时时彩软件 江西时时彩开奖走势图 江苏时时彩开奖记录 特区七星彩论坛
秒速赛车群 广东时时彩单双 走势图排列5 四川金7乐官网下载 体彩开奖
黑龙江省福彩p62开奖 河南22选5开奖号码查询 内蒙古快三派奖 北京幸运飞艇 南国彩票论坛