（possessio　noumenon）　must　be　assumed　as　possible；　if　there　is　to　be
  rightly　an　external　mine　and　thine。　Empirical　possession　is　thus
  only　phenomenal　possession　or　holding　（detention）　of　the　object　in　the
  sphere　of　sensible　appearance　（possessio　phenomenon）；　although　the
  object　which　I　possess　is　not　regarded　in　this　practical　relation　as
  itself　a　phenomenon…　according　to　the　exposition　of　the　Transcendental
  Analytic　in　the　Critique　of　Pure　Reason…　but　as　a　thing　in　itself。　For
  in　the　Critique　of　Pure　Reason　the　interest　of　reason　turns　upon　the
  theoretical　knowledge　of　the　nature　of　things　and　how　far　reason　can
  go　in　such　knowledge。　But　here　reason　has　to　deal　with　the　practical
  determination　of　the　action　of　the　will　according　to　laws　of
  freedom；　whether　the　object　is　perceivable　through　the　senses　or
  merely　thinkable　by　the　pure　understanding。　And　right；　as　under
  consideration；　is　a　pure　practical　conception　of　the　reason　in
  relation　to　the　exercise　of　the　will　under　laws　of　freedom。
  And；　hence；　it　is　not　quite　correct　to　speak　of　〃possessing〃　a　right
  to　this　or　that　object；　but　it　should　rather　be　said　that　an　object　is
  possessed　in　a　purely　juridical　way；　for　a　right　is　itself　the
  rational　possession　of　an　object；　and　to　〃possess　a　possession；〃　would
  be　an　expression　without　meaning。
  6。　Deduction　of　the　Conception　of　a　Purely　Juridical
  Possession　of　an　External　Object　（Possessio　Noumenon）。
  The　question；　〃How　is　an　external　mine　and　thine　possible？〃　resolves
  itself　into　this　other　question：　〃How　is　a　merely　juridical　or
  rational　possession　possible？〃　And　this　second　question　resolves
  itself　again　into　a　third：　〃How　is　a　synthetic　proposition　in　right
  possible　a　priori？〃
  All　propositions　of　right…　as　juridical　propositions…　are
  propositions　a　priori；　for　they　are　practical　laws　of　reason
  （dictamina　rationis）。　But　the　juridical　proposition　a　priori
  respecting　empirical　possession　is　analytical；　for　it　says　nothing
  more　than　what　follows　by　the　principle　of　contradiction；　from　the
  conception　of　such　possession；　namely；　that　if　I　am　the　holder　of　a
  thing　in　the　way　of　being　physically　connected　with　it；　any　one
  interfering　with　it　without　my　consent…　as；　for　instance；　in　wrenching
  an　apple　out　of　my　hand…　affects　and　detracts　from　my　freedom　as
  that　which　is　internally　mine；　and　consequently　the　maxim　of　his
  action　is　in　direct　contradiction　to　the　axiom　of　right。　The
  proposition　expressing　the　principle　of　an　empirical　rightful
  possession　does　not　therefore　go　beyond　the　right　of　a　person　in
  reference　to　himself。
  On　the　other　hand；　the　proposition　expressing　the　possibility　of　the
  possession　of　a　thing　external　to　me；　after　abstraction　of　all　the
  conditions　of　empirical　possession　in　space　and　time…　consequently
  presenting　the　assumption　of　the　possibility　of　a　possessio
  noumenon…　goes　beyond　these　limiting　conditions；　and　because　this
  proposition　asserts　a　possession　even　without　physical　holding；　as
  necessary　to　the　conception　of　the　external　mine　and　thine；　it　is
  synthetical。　And　thus　it　becomes　a　problem　for　reason　to　show　how　such
  a　proposition；　extending　its　range　beyond　the　conception　of
  empirical　possession；　is　possible　a　priori。
  In　this　manner；　for　instance；　the　act　of　taking　possession　of　a
  particular　portion　of　the　soil　is　a　mode　exercising　the　private
  free…will　without　being　an　act　of　usurpation。　The　possessor　founds
  upon　the　innate　right　of　common　possession　of　the　surface　of　the
  earth；　and　upon　the　universal　will　corresponding　a　priori　to　it；　which
  allows　a　private　possession　of　the　soil；　because　what　are　mere
  things　would　be　otherwise　made　in　themselves　and　by　a　law　into
  unappropriable　objects。　Thus　a　first　appropriator　acquires
  originally　by　primary　possession　a　particular　portion　of　the　ground；
  and　by　right　（jure）　he　resists　every　other　person　who　would　hinder　him
  in　the　private　use　of　it；　although；　while　the　〃state　of　nature〃
  continues；　this　cannot　be　done　by　juridical　means　（de　jure）；　because　a
  public　law　does　not　yet　exist。
  And　although　a　piece　of　ground　should　be　regarded　as　free；　or
  declared　to　be　such；　so　as　to　be　for　the　public　use　of　all　without
  distinction；　yet　it　cannot　be　said　that　it　is　thus　free　by　nature
  and　originally　so；　prior　to　any　juridical　act。　For　there　would　be　a
  real　relation　already　incorporated　in　such　a　piece　of　ground　by　the
  very　fact　that　the　possession　of　it　was　denied　to　any　particular
  individual；　and　as　this　public　freedom　of　the　ground　would　be　a
  prohibition　of　it　to　every　particular　individual；　this　presupposes　a
  common　possession　of　it　which　cannot　take　effect　without　a　contract。　A
  piece　of　ground；　however；　which　can　only　become　publicly　free　by
  contract；　must　actually　be　in　the　possession　of　all　those　associated
  together；　who　mutually　interdict　or　suspend　each　other；　from　any
  particular　or　private　use　of　it。
  This　original　community　of　the　soil　and　of　the　things　upon　it
  （communio　fundi　originaria）；　is　an　idea　which　has　objective　and
  practical　juridical　reality　and　is　entirely　different　from　the　idea　of
  a　primitive　community　of　things；　which　is　a　fiction。　For　the　latter
  would　have　had　to　be　founded　as　a　form　of　society；　and　must　have　taken
  its　rise　from　a　contract　by　which　all　renounced　the　right　of　private
  possession；　so　that　by　uniting　the　property　owned　by　each　into　a
  whole；　it　was　thus　transformed　into　a　common　possession。　But　had
  such　an　event　taken　place；　history　must　have　presented　some　evidence
  of　it。　To　regard　such　a　procedure　as　the　original　mode　of　taking
  possession；　and　to　hold　that　the　particular　possessions　of　every
  individual　may　and　ought　to　be　grounded　upon　it；　is　evidently　a
  contradiction。
  Possession　（possessio）　is　to　be　distinguished　from　habitation　as
  mere　residence　（sedes）；　and　the　act　of　taking　possession　of　the　soil
  in　the　intention　of　acquiring　it　once　for　all；　is　also　to　be
  distinguished　from　settlement　or　domicile　（incolatus）；　which　is　a
  continuous　private　possession　of　a　place　that　is　dependent　on　the
  presence　of　the　individual　upon　it。　We　have　not　here　to　deal　with
  the　question　of　domiciliary　settlement；　as　that　is　a　secondary
  juridical　act　which　may　follow　upon　possession；　or　may　not　occur　at
  all；　for　as　such　it　could　not　involve　an　original　possession；　but　only
  a　secondary　possession　derived　from　the　consent　of　others。
  Simple　physical　possession；　or　holding　of　the　soil；　involves　already
  certain　relations　of　right　to　the　thing；　although　it　is　certainly
  not　sufficient　to　enable　me　to　regard　it　as　mine。　Relative　to
  others；　so　far　as　they　know；　it　appears　as　a　first　possession　in
  harmony　with　the　law　of　external　freedom；　and；　at　the　same　time；　it　is
  embraced　in　the　universal　original　possession　which　contains　a
  priori　the　fundamental　principle　of　the　possibility　of　a　private
  possession。　Hence　to　disturb　the　first　occupier　or　holder　of　a　portion
  of　the　soil　in　his　use　of　it　is　a　lesion　or　wrong　done　to　him。　The
  first　taking　of　possession　has　therefore　a　title　of　right　（titulus
  possessionis）　in　its　favour；　which　is　simply　the　principle　of　the
  original　common　possession；　and　the　saying　that　〃It　is　well　for
  those　who　are　in　possession〃　（beati　possidentes）；　when　one　is　not
  bound　to　authenticate　his　possession；　is　a　principle　of　natural
  right　that　establishes　the　juridical　act　of　taking　possession；　as　a
  ground　of　acquisition　upon　which　every　first　possessor　may　found。
  It　has　been　shown　in　the　Critique　of　Pure　Reason　that　in　theoretical
  principles　a　priori；　an　intuitional　perception　a　priori　must　be
  supplied　in　connection　with　any　given　conception；　and；　consequently；
  were　it　a　question　of　a　purely　theoretical　principle；　something
  would　have　to　be　added　to　the　conception　of　the　possession　of　an
  object　to　make　it　real。　But　in　respect　of　the　practical　principle
  under　consideration；　the　procedure　is　just　the　converse　of　the
  theoretical　process；　so　that　all　the　conditions　of　perception　which
  form　the　foundation　of　empirical　possession　must　be　abstracted　or
  taken　away　in　order　to　extend　the　range　of　the　juridical　conception
  beyond　the　empirical　sphere；　and　in　order　to　be　able　to　apply　the
  postulate；　that　every　external　object　of　the　free　activity　of　my　will；
  so　far　as　I　have　it　in　my　power；　although　not　in　the　possession　of　it；
  may　be　reckoned　as　juridically　mine。
  The　possibility　of　such　a　possession；　with　consequent　deduction　of
  the　conception　of　a　nonempirical　possession；　is　founded　upon　the
  juridical　postulate　of　the　practical　reason；　that　〃It　is　a　juridical
  duty　so　to　act　towards　others　that　what　is　external　and　useable　may
  come　into　the　possession　or　become　the　property　of　some　one。〃　And　this
  postulate　is　conjoined　with　the　exposition　of　the　conception　that　what
  is　externally　one's　own　is　founded　upon　a　possession；　that　is　not
  physical。　The　possibility　of　such　a　possession；　thus　conceived；
  cannot；　however；　be　proved　o