[...] "Nobody has ever, gentlemen, doubted the right of the state to
remove part of the value of property without compensation -through general restrictions- everytime
the former imposes regulations for the common benefit. Nobody
has doubted the right of the State to vote, should the serious social need arise,
a law with restrospect power, affecting property rights themselves, that have been legally
acquired under the force of the prevailing laws. The individual in his right of ownership
reserves only one right, to claim from the state that it always respect
his property, never taking it without prior compensation, never removing it from
him, except on grounds of the common good. But apart from this
the recent concept about the state cannot accept the individual
opposing the general social interests, saying 'I persist in
having this property of my own and I will not accept as compensation
its whole value nor for any other reason but because this is to my liking'.
(Clapping). Ownership, if it had such a meaning, would turn from ownership,
the content of which is to be regulated by law, to dominion of public law.
But dominion is exercised only by the State, and it is truly strange that, whereas
no-one doubts the right of the State to construct a square, which serves usually
the beautification of a city or town, I repeat that whereas for the construction of ae
square no-one doubts the right of the State to remove the property of many poor
householders, to remove the very house, in which they live, as long as
it provides them with full compensation because of depriving them of their property,
nevertheless the right of the State to remove part of a large property in order
to settle the inhabitants of this area, who are homeless, who themselves and their
ancestors have always inhabited this area, kneaded it with their sweat, and what is more the earth covers
the bones of their fathers and even of their children.
This contestation of the right of the State towers to the extent of incensing the public opinion,
when it concerns not a particularly large estate but a chiftlik, which has been formed in Thessaly,
that is an estate which belongs to only one individual, an estate, that in
this sense is a kind of monopoly for its owner, whereas on the other hand
the whole population of that area is landless and does not even possess
a house to call their own".[...]
G. Th. Mavrogordatos, Meletes kai keimena gia tin periodo 1909 - 1940,
Athens - Komotini, Sakkoulas editions, n.d., pp. 103-195.
|
 |
