Vn ON THE NATURAL INEQUALITY (>K MKX 317 



depended upon to hold their native soil against all 

 intruders, and in the teeth of the most absolute of 

 ethical politicians, even though he should prove 

 from Rousseau, 



"Exceedingly well 

 That such conduct was quite atrocious." 



Rousseau's first and second great doctrines hav- 

 ing thus collapsed, what is to be said to the third ? 



Of course, if there are no rights of property but 

 those based on contract, conquest, that is to say, 

 taking possession by force, of itself can confer no 

 right. But, as th'e doctrine that there are no rights 

 of property but those based on the consent of the 

 whole human race that is, that A. B. cannot own 

 anything unless the whole of mankind formally 

 signify their assent to his ownership turns out to 

 be more than doubtful in theory and decidedly in- 

 convenient in practice, we may inquire if there is 

 any better reason for the assertion that force 

 can confer no right of ownership. Suppose that 

 in the old seafaring days, a pirate attacked an East 

 Indiaman got soundly beaten and had to surrender. 

 When the pirates had walked the plank or been 

 hanged, had the captain and crew of the East India- 

 man no right of property in the prize I am nut 

 speaking of mere legal right, but ethically? But 

 if they had, what is the difference when nations 

 attack one another ; when there is no way out of 

 their quarrel but the appeal to force, and the one 



