Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/531

 PROPERTY

465

PROPERTY

sequently, the right of ownership must rest either wholly with communities, as the communists and socialists maintain, or with private persons. It is impossible to reduce the doctrines of communism and socialism to prac ice. All attempts hitherto made have ended in fail ire. Of longest duration were the experiments of sor.e sects which were founded on a religious basis. But it is manifest that communities based on religious fanaticism cannot become the general rule. Historj', too, testifies to the necessity of private property. An institution which meets us everjTvhere and at all times with only a few negligible exceptions, which clevelops more and more among the nations as their civilization advances, which has alwaj's been recognized and protected as just cannot be an arbitrary invention, but must be the necessary outcome of the tendencies and needs of human nature. For a universal and permanent phenomenon supposes a universal and permanent cause, and this cause in the present question can only be human nature with its wants and inclinations, which remain essentially the same. Besides, only private property is a sufficient stimulus for man to work. The earth does not furnish the products and fruits which man needs for the sustenance and development of soul and body, except at the expense of hard, continued labour. Now men will not undertake this labour un- less they have a guarantee that they can freely dis- pose of its fruits for their own benefit and can exclude all others from their enjoyment. This argument, however, does not bind us to the labour theory re- futed above. This theorj- maintains that each one can call his property all that and only that which is the product of his labour. This is wTong. The correct theorj' on the other hand says, if man had not the right to acquire private property, the necessary stimulus to work would be wanting; and the fruit of labour in this theory signifies private property in the widest sense, for instance, wages.

Private ownership alone is able to harmonize order and freedom in the social life. If no one could ex- clude others from using his property, order would be impossible. Nobody could lay down in advance a plan of his life and activity, or procure in advance the means and the material for his livelihood. If on the other hand productive goods were the property of the community and subject to its administration, liberty would be impossible. Man is not really free unless he can, at least to a certain degree dispose of external goods at will, not only of goods of con- sumption but also of productive goods. The largest portion of human activity, direct!}' or indirectly, aims at procuring external, useful goods; without private property, all would lapse into abject depend- ence on the community, which would be obliged to assign to each man his office and his share of the work. But with private property, both freedom and order can exist as far as the imperfection of all human con- ditions allows it. This is proved by history and by daily experience. Thus also the peace of society is best guaranteed. True it is that in spite of private property many disputes arise about "mine and thine." But these are settled by the law courts and do not disturb the essential order of society. In any other disposition of property among free men, the disputes would be far more numerous and violent, and this would necessarily lead to quarrels and feuds. Just as for the indi\adual, .so private property is necessary for the family. The family cannot exist as an in- dependent organizm unless it can freely manage its internal affairs, and unless the parents have to pro- vide for the maintenance and education of their chil- dren, and this without any external interference. All this demands property, the exclusive u.se of a <hvi'lling, food, clothes, and other things, which fre- (juenlly must be procured in advance so that a well- regulated and secure family life may be made possible. XII.— 30

Like the individual, the family, when deprived of all property, easily falls into a vagabond life or becomes whollj' dependent on the will of others. The duty to care for the preservation and education of the family urges the father and mother to work unceas- ingly, while the consciousness that they are respon- sible for their children before God and men is a power- ful stay and support of their moral lives. On the other hand, the consciousness of the children that they are wholly dependent on their parents for their maintenance and start in life is a very important ele- ment in their education. The socialists are quite logical in seeking to transfer not only the possession of productive goods, but also the care of the education of children to the community at large. But it is ob- vious that such a scheme would end in the total de- struction of the family, and hence that socialism is an enemy of all genuine civilization.

Private property is also indispensable for human society in general. Progress in civilization is possible only when many co-operate in large and far-reaching enterprises; but this co-operation is out of the ques- tion unless there are many who possess more than is required for their ample maintenance and at the same time have an interest in devoting the surplus to such enterprises. Private interest and public welfare here meet each other half way. Private owners, if they consult their own interest, will use their property for public enterprises because these alone are perma- nently paying investments. The advances and dis- coveries of the last century would not have been accomplished, at least the greater part of them, with- out private property. If we but recall the extensive net-work of railroads, steamship lines, telegraphs, and telephones, which is spread around the world, the gigantic tunnels and canals, the progress made in electricity, aerial navigation, aviation, automobiles etc., we must confess that private property is a powerful and necessary factor in civilization. Not only economic conditions, but also the higher fields of culture are bettered by the existence of wealthy proprietors. Though they themselves do not become artists and scholars, still they are indirectly the oc- casion for the progress of the arts and sciences. Only the rich can order works of art on a large scale, only they have the means that frequently are necessary for the education of artists and scholars. On the other hand, poverty and want are the reason why many become eminent artists and scholars. Their advance in life and their social position depend on their education. How many brilliant geniuses would have been crippled at their birth if fortune had granted them everj- comfort. Lastly, we must not overlook the moral importance of private property. It urges man to labour, to save, to be orderly, and affords both rich and poor frequent opportunity for the exercise of virtue.

Though private property is a necessity, still the use of earthly goods should in a manner be general, as Aristotle intimated (Polit., I. 2, c. 5) and as Chris- tian philosophy has proved in detail (St. Thomas, "Summa" II-II, Q. Ixvi, a. 2; Leo XIII's encycl., "De conditione opificum"). This end is obtained when the rich not onlj- observe the laws of justice, by not taking unjust ad\'antage, but also, out of charity and liberality, share their abundance with the needy. Earthly goods are meant to be, in a certain manner, useful to all men, since they have been created for all men, and consequently the rich are strictly obliged to share their superfluities with the poor. True Christian charity will even go beyond this strict obligation. A wide and fertile field is thus opened up to its activity, through the existence of poverty. For the poor thi>mselves, poverty is a hard, b\il beneficial, scliool of trust in Ooil, humility, renunciation. It is of course self-evident that pov- erty should not degenerate into wretchedness, which