Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will--bestow on you in the name of the collectivity (for such bestowal took place in "States" from the most ancient times, each receiving "according to his desert," and therefore according to the measure in which each was able to _deserve_ it, to acquire it by _service_), but: Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. _I_ alone decide what I will have. "Now, that is truly no new wisdom, for self-seekers have acted so at all times!" Not at all necessary either that the thing be new, if only _consciousness_ of it is present. But this latter will not be able to claim great age, unless perhaps one counts in the Egyptian and Spartan law; for how little current it is appears even from the stricture above, which speaks with contempt of "self-seekers." One is to know just this, that the procedure of taking hold is not contemptible, but manifests the pure deed of the egoist at one with himself. Only when I expect neither from individuals nor from a collectivity what I can give to myself, only then do I slip out of the snares of--love; the rabble ceases to be rabble only when it _takes hold_. Only the dread of taking hold, and the corresponding punishment thereof, makes it a rabble. Only that taking hold is _sin_, crime,--only this dogma creates a rabble. For the fact that the rabble remains what it is, it (because it allows validity to that dogma) is to blame as well as, more especially, those who "self-seekingly" (to give them back their favorite word) demand that the dogma be respected. In short, the lack of _consciousness_ of that "new wisdom," the old consciousness of sin, alone bears the blame. If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. _Unions_ will then, in this matter too, multiply the individual's means and secure his assailed property. According to the Communists' opinion the commune should be proprietor. On the contrary, _I_ am proprietor, and I only come to an understanding with others about my property. If the commune does not do what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property. I am proprietor, but property is _not sacred_. I should be merely possessor? No, hitherto one was only possessor, secured in the possession of a parcel by leaving others also in possession of a parcel; but now _everything_ belongs to me, I am proprietor of _everything that I require_ and can get possession of. If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require,--then the egoist says, I take what I require. If the Communists conduct themselves as ragamuffins, the egoist behaves as proprietor.