In effect, “the clauses of the social contract reduce themselves to one, namely, the total transfer of each associate with all his rights to the community."[20] Every one surrenders himself entirely, “just as he stands, he and all his forces, of which his property forms a portion.”  There is no exception nor reservation; whatever he may have been previously and whatever may have belonged to him is no longer his own.  Henceforth whatever he becomes or whatever he may possess devolves on him only through the delegation of the social body, the universal proprietor and absolute master.  All rights must be vested in the State and none in the individual; otherwise there would be litigation between them, and, “as there is no common superior to decide between them” their litigation would never end.  One the contrary, through the complete donation which each one makes of himself, “the unity is as perfect as possible;” having renounced himself “he has no further claim to make.”

This being admitted let us trace the consequences. —

In the first place, I enjoy my property only through tolerance and at second-hand; for, according to the social contract, I have surrendered it;[21] “it now forms a portion of the national estate;” If I retain the use of its for the time being it is through a concession of the State which makes me a “depositary” of it.  And this favor must not be considered as restitution.  “Far from accepting the property of individuals society despoils them of it, simply converting the usurpation into a veritable right, the enjoyment of it into proprietorship.”  Previous to the social contract I was possessor not by right but in fact and even unjustly if I had large possessions; for, “every man has naturally a right to whatever he needs,” and I have robbed other men of all that I possessed beyond my subsistence.  Hence, so far from the State being under obligation to me, I am under obligation to it, the property which it returns to me not being mine but that with which the State favors me.  It follows, accordingly, that the State may impose conditions on its gift, limit the use I may make of it, according to its fancy, restrict and regulate my disposition of it, my right to bequeath it.  “According to nature,[22] the right of property does not extend beyond the life of its owner; the moment he dies his possessions are no longer his own.  Thus, to prescribe the conditions on which he may dispose of it is really less to change his right in appearance than to extend it in effect.”  In any event as my title is an effect of the social contract it is precarious like the contract itself; a new stipulation suffices to limit it or to destroy it.  “The sovereign[23] may legitimately appropriate to himself all property, as was done in Sparta in the time of Lycurgus.”  In our lay convent whatever each monk possesses is only a revocable gift by the convent.

In the second place, this convent is a seminary.  I have no right to bring up my children in my own house and in my own way.