[p. 483]
|483| that it must be treated wholly negatively by it and remain subjected to its dominion; what is by its nature negative must remain negative and may not become something fixed. To prevent it from constituting itself for itself and becoming an independent might, it is not enough to set up the propositions that everyone has the right to live, that in a people the universal must see to it that every citizen has his livelihood, and that a perfect security and ease of acquisition be present; this last, thought as an absolute principle, would rather exclude a negative treatment of the system of possession and let it have its way completely and settle itself absolutely. But rather the ethical whole must keep it in the feeling of its inner nullity and hinder its shooting up, in respect of quantity and culture, to ever greater difference and inequality, towards which its nature tends; which, in every state too – more unconsciously and in the shape of an external natural necessity, from which the state itself would wish to be exempt, through the ever greater expense of the state itself, growing with the growth of the system of possession, and correspondingly rising imposts and thus a diminution of possession and a hampering of acquisition, most of all through war, which brings into manifold confusion whatever tends that way, as well as through the jealousy of other estates and the oppression of trade, partly with will, partly against their will through lack of understanding, etc. – is brought about to such degrees in which the positive ethical life of the state itself permits independence from the purely real system and the maintenance of the negative and restrictive posture.
Reality in the relationship in which it has just been considered, and of which physical need, enjoyment, possession and the objects of possession and enjoyment are different sides, is pure reality; it merely expresses the extremes of the relation. But the relation also contains an

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.