“When the first laws were promulgated, when the weak individual agreed to surrender part of his independence to ensure the rest of it, the maintenance of his goods was incontestably the first thing he desired, and so to enjoy in peace whatever little he had, he made its protection the prime object of the regulations he wanted formulated. The powerful individual assented to these laws which he knew very well he would never obey. And so the laws were made. It was decreed that every man would possess his heritage, undisturbed and happy; and that whosoever were to trouble him in this possession of what was his would be chastised. But in this there was nothing natural, nothing dictated by Nature, nothing of what she inspires, it was all very brazenly man-made, by men henceforth divided into two classes: those who yielded up a quarter of the loaf in order to be able, undisturbed, to eat and digest what was left; and those who, eagerly taking the portion proffered to them and seeing that they’d get the rest of the bread whenever they pleased, agreed to the scheme, not in order to prevent their own class from pillaging the weak, but to prevent the weak from despoiling one another—so that they, the powerful, could despoil the weak more conveniently. Thus, theft, instituted by Nature, was not at all banished from the face of the earth; but it came to exist in other forms: stealing was performed juridically. The magistrates stole by having themselves feed for doing the justice they ought to render free of charge. The priest stole by taking payment for serving as intermediary between God and man. The merchant stole by selling his sack of potatoes at a price one-third above the intrinsic value a sack of potatoes really has. Sovereigns stole by imposing arbitrary tithes, dues, taxes, levies upon their subjects. All these plunderings were permitted, they were all authorized in the precious name of right, and where are we today? we observe men take legal action against what? Against the most natural right of all, that is, against the simple right of every man who, lacking money, demands it at gunpoint of those whom he suspects to be wealthier than he. This fellow they call a criminal, and never once do they remember that the first thieves, of whom and to whom no one breathed a word of reproach, against whom no one protested, were uniquely responsible for the crimes of the second—were and are uniquely responsible for the obligation of this second man to find himself a weapon and by force to recuperate what the first usurper tore so unceremoniously away from him. For, if all these thieveries can be perfectly well understood as usurpations which necessitated the indigence of subordinate beings, these same inferiors’ subsequent thefts, rendered inevitable by the earlier thefts of their betters, can scarcely be viewed as crimes; but rather as secondary effects ineluctably precipitated by primary causes; and the moment you assent to that primary cause, you forego the possibility of lawfully punishing its effects. To be sure, you may punish them, but only unjustly. If you elbow a servant against a costly vase, if, as he slips and falls, he breaks the vase, you have no right to penalize him for clumsiness; instead, you must direct your wrath upon the cause that drove you to mistreat him. When that wretched peasant, reduced to beggardom by the immense weight of the taxes you load on him,12 abandons his plow, gets hold of a pistol, and goes off to waylay you along the highway, you may punish him, yes, but if you do, I say that you commit a very great infamy; for he’s not at fault, he’s the valet your roughness made upset the vase: don’t push him about and he’ll not break anything; and if you do push him, don’t be surprised when things get broken. Thus when he sets out to rob you this poor fellow commits no crime; he’s merely striving to recover some of the substance you and others like you had previously snatched away from him. He is doing nothing that isn’t completely natural, he is trying to redress the balance which, in the moral as well as the physical realm, is Nature’s highest law: the peasant become desperado is perfectly right and what he does, perfectly just. But that isn’t quite what I was aiming to prove; however, proofs aren’t needed, there’s no need of arguments to demonstrate that the weak individual is doing nothing more nor less than what he must when he attempts his utmost to recover things which were once torn from his grasp. What I should like to convince you of is that neither does the powerful individual commit a crime or an injustice when he strives to despoil the weak. I should like to convince you of that, for it is my own case, and I indulge in this act every day. Well, this demonstration is easy enough: theft perpetrated by a strong man is assuredly a better and more valid act, within the terms and from the standpoint of Nature, than the weak man’s theft; for Nature prescribes no reprisals which the weak may take upon the strong; these reprisals may exist in the moral form, but certainly not in the physical, since, to take physical reprisals the weak man must make use of physical forces he does not possess, he must adopt a character that has not been given him, in short, he must in some sort fly in the face of Nature. That sage mother’s laws unambiguously stipulate that the mighty harm the feeble, since for what other purpose have their powers been invested in the mighty? The strong individual, unlike the weak, never dons masks, he at all times acts true to his own character, his character is the one he has received from Nature, and whatever he does is an honest and direct expression thereof and in the highest sense and degree natural: his oppression, his violence, his cruelties, his tyrannies, his injustices, all these outbursts are of the character instilled in him by the power that gave him life on earth; all these are then simple, straightforward, and therefore pure emanations of what he is, as pure as the hand that engraved the necessity for them in him; and when he exercises all his rights to oppress the weak, to strip and ruin the weak, he therefore does the most natural thing in the world. Had our common dam desired this equality that the weak long to establish, had she truly desired that property be equally shared, why would she have divided the mighty and the weak into two classes? By so differentiating men has she not made her intention amply clear, to wit, that the discrepancies between physical faculties have their counterpart in material discrepancies? Does she not make manifest her design, that to the lion goes the whole share and to the mouse nothing; and this precisely in order to achieve the equilibrium that is the single basis to her whole system? For, in order that equilibrium reign in the natural scheme, it must not be men who install it there; Nature’s equilibrium is disturbance unto men: what to us seems to unsettle the grand balance of things is precisely what, in Nature’s view, establishes it, and the reason therefor is as follows: this that we take to be lack of equilibrium results in the crimes through which order is restored in the universal economy. The mighty make away with everything—that, men agree, is unbalance. The weak react and pillage the strong—there, redressing the scales you have the crimes which are necessary to Nature, So let us never have qualms over what we will be able to snatch from the weak, for it isn’t we who in acting thus qualify our gesture as criminal; it is the weak man’s reaction or vengeance which so characterizes it: robbing the poor, despoiling the orphan, fleecing the widow of her inheritance, man does no more than make rightful use of the rights Nature has given him. Crime? Ha! The only crime would consist in not exploiting these rights: the indigent man, placed by Nature within the range of our depradations, is so much food for the vulture Nature protects. If the powerful man looks to be causing some disturbance when he robs those who lie at his feet, the prostrate restore order by arising to steal from their superiors; great and small, they all serve Nature.
“Tracing the right of property back to its source, one infallibly arrives at usurpation. However, theft is only punished because it violates the right of property; but this right is itself nothing in origin but theft; thus, the law punishes the thief for attacking thieves, punishes the weak for attempting to recover what has been stolen from him, punishes the strong for wishing either to establish or to augment his wealth through exercising the talents and prerogatives he has received from Nature. What a shocking series of inane illogicalities! So long as there shall be no legitimately established title to property (and never will there be any such thing), it will remain very difficult to prove that theft is crime, for the los
s theft causes here is restitution there; and Nature being no more concerned for what happens on the one side than on the other, it is perfectly impossible for anyone in his right mind to affirm that the favoring of either side to the disadvantage of the other can constitute an infraction of her laws.
“And so the weaker party is quite correct when, seeking to recover his usurped goods, he deliberately attacks the stronger party and, if all goes well, forces him to relinquish them; the only wrong he can commit is in betraying the character, that of weakness, with which Nature has stamped him: she created him to be a slave and poor, he declines to submit to slavery and poverty, there’s his fault; and the stronger party, without that same fault because he remains true to his character and acts only in strait accordance therewith, is also and equally right when he seeks to rob the weak and to enjoy himself at their expense. And now let each of them pause a moment and inspect his own heart. In deciding to assault the strong, the weak individual, whatever may be the rights justifying his decision, will be subject to mild doubts and waverings; and this hesitation to proceed and gain satisfaction comes from the fact he is just about to overstep the laws of Nature by assuming a character which is not native to him. The strong individual, on the contrary, when he despoils the weak, when, that is to say, he enters actively into the enjoyment of the rights Nature has conferred upon him, by exercising them to the full, reaps pleasure in proportion to the greater or lesser extent he gives to the realization of his potentialities. The more atrocious the hurt he inflicts upon the helpless, the greater shall be the voluptuous vibrations in him; injustice is his delectation, he glories in the tears his heavy hand wrings from the unlucky; the more he persecutes him, the happier the despot feels, for it is now that he makes the greatest use of the gifts Nature has bestowed upon him; putting these gifts to use is a veritable need, and satisfying that need an incisive pleasure. Moreover, this necessary pleasure-taking, which is born of the comparison made by the happy man between his lot and the unhappy man’s, this truly delicious sensation is never more deeply registered in the fortunate man than when the distress he produces is complete. The more he crushes his woe-ridden prey, the more extreme he renders the contrast and the more rewarding the comparison; and the more, consequently, he adds fuel to the fire of his lust. Thus, from hammering the weak he gleans two exceedingly keen pleasures: the augmentation of his material substance and resources and the moral enjoyment of the comparisons which he renders all the more voluptuous the more suffering he inflicts upon the miserable. So let him pillage, let him burn and ravage and wreck; to this wretch he fastens on let him leave nothing but the breath which will prolong a life whose continuation is necessary to the oppressor if he is to be able to go on making the comparison; let him do as he likes, he’ll do nothing that isn’t natural and sanctioned by Nature, whatever he invents will be nought but the issue of the active powers entrusted to him, the more he puts his potentialities into play, the more pleasure he’ll have; the better the use to which he puts his faculties, to Nature the better servant will he be.
“Allow me, dear girls,” Dorval pursued, “to cite a few precedents in support of my theses; the two of you have benefited from the sort of education that will enable you to understand the examples I am about to set forth.
“Theft is held in such lofty esteem in Abyssinia that the chief of a robber band purchases a license and the right to steal in peace.
“This same act is commendable among the Koriacks; it is the sole means to winning honor and a name in that nation.
“Among the Tohoukichi, a girl cannot marry until she has shown her mettle in this profession.
“With the Mingrelians, theft is a mark of skill and sign of courage; there, a man will publicly boast of his outstanding feats in this sphere.
“Our modern voyagers have found it flourishing in Tahiti.
“In Sicily, it is an honorable calling, that of brigand.
“Under the feudal regime, France was scarcely more than one vast den of thieves; since, only forms have changed, the effects remain the same. It’s no longer the great vassals who steal, they’re the ones who’re plundered; and, in their rights, the nobility have become the slaves of the kings who forced them to their knees.12a
“The celebrated highwayman Sir Edwin Cameron for a long time held Cromwell at bay.
“The well-remembered MacGregor made a science of stealing; he used to send his creatures about the countryside, he’d extort the rents owed by the farmers and give them receipts in the landowners’ names.
“You may set your minds at rest, there is no conceivable manner of appropriating to oneself the belongings of others that is not wholly legitimate. Craft, cunning, force—so many astute means for attaining a valid end; the weak individual’s objective is to see to the more equitable distribution of what is worth having; that of the powerful is to get, to have, to accumulate, to engross, no matter how, at no matter whose expense. When the law of Nature requires an upheaval, does Nature fret over what will be undone in its course? All men’s actions are only the result of Nature’s laws; this should be of comfort to man, this should dissuade him from trembling before any deed—this should engage him calmly to perpetrate every deed, whatever its kind or magnitude. Nothing occurs accidentally; everything in this world is of necessity; well, necessity excuses no matter what; and as soon as an action demonstrates itself necessary it can no more be considered infamous.
“A son of the remarkable Cameron, whom I mentioned a moment ago, perfected the system of theft: the leader’s orders were blindly obeyed by his men, every stolen article was stored in a general depot, the swag was ulteriorly split with impeccable fairness.
“In olden days, great exploits of thievery were the stuff of legendry and considered heroic; honored was he who excelled in this domain.
“Two famous thieves took the Pretender under their protection; they went about stealing to maintain him.
“When an Illinois commits a theft, conforming to tradition he presents his judge with half of what he has stolen, the judge acquits him therewith, and no Illinois judge would ever dream of proceeding otherwise.
“Lands there are where theft is punished by lex talionis: if caught, the thief’s robbed, then he’s set free. That law seems very mild to you? So it may appear as applied in this case; there are others, however, where its effects are atrocious, and I shall have you notice its iniquity. This little demonstration won’t be at all irrelevant. But, before continuing our dissertation, I’ll make one or two very simple comments upon this law of the talion.
“We suppose that Peter insults and mistreats Paul; next, in the court where tit for tat holds sway, Peter is made to suffer everything he has inflicted upon Paul. This is crying injustice; for when Peter perpetrated against Paul the injury in question, he had motives which, consonant with all the laws of natural equity, in considerable measure lessened the heinous quality of his offense; but when to punish him you treat him in the same way he treated Paul, you have not the same motive that inspired Peter, yet you wrong him just as deeply. Thus, there is a very significant difference between him and you: he committed an atrocity that was based upon motives, and you commit the same atrocity with none at all. What I have just said ought to illustrate the extreme injustice of a law which is so greatly admired by fools.13
“There was a time when the German magnates counted among their rights that of highway robbery. This right derives from the earliest and most fundamental institutions in societies, where the free man or vagabond got his livelihood in the manner of the beasts of the forests and the birds of the air: by wresting food from whatever convenient or possible source; in those times, he was a child and student of Nature, today he is the slave of ludicrous prejudices, abominable laws, and idiotic religions. All the good things of this world, cries the weak individual, were equally distributed over the surface of the globe. Very well. But, by creating weak and strong, Nature with sufficient clarity announced that she intended these good things to go to the str
ong alone, and that the weak were to be deprived of all enjoyment of them save that pittance which would befall them as so many crumbs from the table around which sit the mighty, despotic, and capricious. Nature bade the latter enrich themselves by stealing from the weak and the weak take redress by stealing from the rich; so spoke she unto men in the same language wherein she advised wild birds to steal the seed from out of the ploughed furrow, the wolf to devour the lamb, the spider to spin webs to snare flies. All, all is theft, all is unceasing and rigorous competition in Nature; the desire to make off with the substance of others is the foremost—the most legitimate—passion Nature has bred into us. These are the basic laws of conduct that her hand has writ in our bone and fiber, theft is the underlying instinct in all living beings and, without doubt, the most agreeable one.
“Theft was held in honor at Lacedaemon. Lycurgus’ constitution made it mandatory; stealing, said that great lawgiver, rendered the Spartans supple, quick, bold, and brave; it is still admired in the Philippines.
“The Germans considered it an exercise very suitable to youth; there were festivals during which the Romans smiled upon it; the Egyptians included it in their educational curricula; every American is much addicted to theft; nothing is more widespread in Africa; beyond the Alps it is hardly discouraged.
“Every night, Nero used to quit his palace and go abroad to steal in the streets; on the morrow, what he had robbed his countrymen of was put on public sale in the market place, and the profits went to the Emperor.
Juliette Page 15