The property is a natural and absolute
The Declaration of the Rights of Man has placed the property between the so-called natural and inalienable, that is, in this order, the following four: freedom, equality, property and personal safety. What method have been followed for 93 lawmakers to make this list? None, set these principles and spoke on the sovereignty and laws of a general and according to their particular opinion. All they did in the dark, slightly.
A Toullier believe, “the absolute rights can be reduced to three: security, liberty, property.” Why has eliminated the equity? Is it because liberty is, or because the property was rejected? The author commented civil law says nothing about it, not even suspected that that’s the point of discussion.
However, when compared with each other three or four rights, it appears that the property looks nothing like the others, that most of the people in power as there is only asleep and exercise power, that for those who enjoy is susceptible to certain transactions and modifications that are repugnant to the quality of natural right to property is attributed, in practice, governments, courts and laws do not respect, and, finally, everyone, spontaneous and unanimously, the judges chimerical.
Freedom is inviolable. I can not sell or dispose of my freedom. Any contract, any provision that it seeks to transfer or the suspension of freedom is zero, the slave who treads the land of freedom is at the same moment free. When society stops a thief and take away your freedom, work in self-defense, who breaks the social compact committing a crime is declared a public enemy, and threaten the freedom of others, are forced to deprive him of the yours. Freedom is the first condition of man’s state, renouncing freedom would be to give the quality of man. How can the man not free to perform their acts?
Similarly, equality before the law does not support any restriction or excepcón. All citizens are equally eligible to public office, and here’s why, because of this equality, luck or age who decide, in many cases, the preference. The humblest citizen can sue the highest character and get a favorable ruling. If a millionaire build an palace in the vineyard of a poor farmer, the courts could order the intruder to the demolition of the palace, but would have cost millions, the layout of the vineyard and the payment of damages. The law wants all legitimately acquired property is respected regardless of value and preference of people.
thanks