The Right to Ownership
Hugo Bilgram
[Reprinted from Liberty, 2 August 1890]
Will you permit me to ask you for the definition, from an Anarchistic
standpoint, of the Right of Ownership? What do you mean to convey when
you say that a certain thing belongs to a certain person?
Before directing my attention to the study of the social question, I
had a rather confused notion of the meaning of this term. Ownership
appeared to me a kind of amalgamation of wealth with the individual.
This conception could, of course, not be sustained in an analysis of
the social question and the distribution of wealth. For some time I
could not obtain a clear notion as to what the term, as popularly
used, really signifies, nor could I find a satisfactory definition in
any of the books I had at command. The writers of dictionaries content
themselves with quoting a number of synonyms which throw no light on
the subject, and the writers on Political Economy seem not to bother
themselves about such trifles. They need no solid foundations for
their theories since they build their castles in the air. It is said
that ownership is the exclusive right of possession, but this
explanation fails to meet the inquiry of him who can nowhere find a
satisfactory explanation of the import of the term right.
It is clear that a radical distinction exists between possession and
ownership, though these concepts are in a measure related to each
other. It seems reasonable, therefore, to expect to find a clue by
examining the distinction that exists between the possessor and the
owner of a thing. And this examination is not difficult. The owner of
a thing which for some reason is in the possession of some one else
may demand its return, and, if it is not returned willingly, the
aid to the law can be invoked. This leads to the conclusion that
the right of ownership is that relation between a thing and a person
created by the social promise to guarantee possession.
This is the only definition that appears satisfactory to me. But it
implies the existence of a social organization, however crude it may
be. It implies that a supreme power will enforce the command: Thou
shalt not steal. And in the measure in which this social organization
gains stability and in which this social power gains a more universal
supremacy, the right of ownership will assume a more definite
existence.
Now I can perhaps repeat my question in a way to be better
understood. Has Anarchism a different conception of the right of
ownership, or is this right altogether repudiated, or is it assumed
that out of the ruins of government another social organization,
wielding a supreme power, will arise? I can at present see no other
alternative.
|