364 NATURAL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS vill 



law of nature affords not the least reason why 

 another man who is stronger should not take his 

 possession away from him. 



As I have already fully shown, there is not the 

 least connection between the natural rights of the 

 solitary individual and the moral or civil rights of 

 the man who has entered into association with 

 others. A man may justly say that it is no more 

 than the " use of his own powers," to knock another 

 down and rob him of his dinner ; and that it is no 

 more than " the enjoyment of the fruits of his own 

 exertions " to proceed to eat that dinner. Is it pre- 

 tended that the man who has entered into associ- 

 ation with others retains those " natural rights " ? 



But let us assume, for the sake of argument, 

 not only that labour is the " only " title to exclu- 

 sive possession, but that the foundation of this title 

 lies in the right of a man to himself ; and in which 

 is, somewhat sophistically, included the right to the 

 use of his own powers and the enjoyment of the 

 fruits of his own exertions. If we try to believe 

 both these propositions at once, surely we fall into 

 perplexities worse than any that have yet befallen 

 us. If labour is the only title to exclusive posses- 

 sion ; if, for example, there can be no exclusive 

 possession of cultivated land simply and solely 

 because, according to Mr. George, it is not a 

 product of labour propositions on the axiomatic 

 certainty of which the whole fabric of " Progress 

 and Poverty " rests how in the world does a man 



