ver
cial
no
1ed
y es-
nts
in
of
2t
crn
ro-
ity
it
ral
an
oy-
Ju-
ion
sad
ses
ind
ny
‘nt,
the
of
ty
hat
and
1ses
it
Property and Inheritance.
q
may be doubted whether respect for property-rights,
derived from a time when these were the typical
forms of property, will indefinitely afford a support for
the security of property rights of a very different order.
In the second place, property rights based entirely
on contract, unsupported by the actual possession
of any material object, are liable to insidious attacks
by the very authority by which they are created
and maintained. The State makes them possible
by its legislation and upholds them by its police
power ; but by its legislation it is constantly modify-
ing the content of property rights, and by its financial
policy it is constantly altering their value. The
Russian delegates at Genoa pointed out that, in
extinguishing property-rights without compensation,
the revolutionary government could cite the pre-
cedent of the United States of America, which first
extinguished property right in slaves, and, more
recently, destroyed the value of property in breweries
and distilleries, without any compensation; they
might have pointed out that all the belligerent
powers, by their inflationary policy, had at least
halved, and in some cases extinguished, the value
of their leading gilt-edged securities, without com-
pensation and almost without comment.
In the third place, property must be unstable so
long as it is so unevenly distributed. The ideal of
democratic equality may still be the ideal of a
minority, but it is a growing minority, and the
existing distribution of property is the most glaring
denial of it. Whatever social justification the
institution of property may possess—that it has a
great potential value I shall try to show in a moment—
the number of citizens who have actual experience
of its benefits is too few to ensure the general apprecia-
tion that is necessary to stability.