you　deprive　yourself　of　your　goods。　　Destroy　the　land；　or；　what　is　the　same　thing；　sell　it；you　not　only　transfer　one；　two；　or　several　crops；　but　you　annihilate　all　the　products　that　you　could　derive　from　it；　you　and　your　children　and　your　children's　children。
  When　M。　Ch。　Comte；　the　apostle　of　property　and　the　eulogist　of　labor；　supposes　an　alienation　of　the　soil　on　the　part　of　the　government；　we　must　not　think　that　he　does　so　without　reason　and　for　no　purpose；　it　is　a　necessary　part　of　his　position。　　As　he　rejected　the　theory　of　occupancy；　and　as　he　knew；　moreover；　that　labor　could　not　constitute　the　right　in　the　absence　of　a　previous　permission　to　occupy；　he　was　obliged　to　connect　this　permission　with　the　authority　of　the　government；　which　means　that　property　is　based　upon　the　sovereignty　of　the　people；　in　other　words；　upon　universal　consent。　　This　theory　we　have　already　considered。
  To　say　that　property　is　the　daughter　of　labor；　and　then　to　give　labor　material　on　which　to　exercise　itself；　is；　if　I　am　not　mistaken；　to　reason　in　a　circle。　　Contradictions　will　result　from　it。
  〃A　piece　of　land　of　a　certain　size　produces　food　enough　to　supply　a　man　for　one　day。　　If　the　possessor；　through　his　labor；　discovers　some　method　of　making　it　produce　enough　for　two　days；　he　doubles　its　value。　　This　new　value　is　his　work；　his　creation：　it　is　taken　from　nobody；　it　is　his　property。〃
  I　maintain　that　the　possessor　is　paid　for　his　trouble　and　industry　in　his　doubled　crop；　but　that　he　acquires　no　right　to　the　land。　　〃Let　the　laborer　have　the　fruits　of　his　labor。〃　　Very　good；　but　I　do　not　understand　that　property　in　products　carries　with　it　property　in　raw　material。　　Does　the　skill　of　the　fisherman；　who　on　the　same　coast　can　catch　more　fish　than　his　fellows；　make　him　proprietor　of　the　fishing…grounds？　　Can　the　expertness　of　a　hunter　ever　be　regarded　as　a　property…title　to　a　game…forest？　　The　analogy　is　perfect；the　industrious　cultivator　finds　the　reward　of　his　industry　in　the　abundancy　and　superiority　of　his　crop。　　If　he　has　made　improvements　in　the　soil；　he　has　the　possessor's　right　of　preference。　　Never；　under　any　circumstances；　can　he　be　allowed　to　claim　a　property…title　to　the　soil　which　he　cultivates；　on　the　ground　of　his　skill　as　a　cultivator。
  To　change　possession　into　property；　something　is　needed　besides　labor；　without　which　a　man　would　cease　to　be　proprietor　as　soon　as　he　ceased　to　be　a　laborer。　　Now；　the　law　bases　property　upon　immemorial；　unquestionable　possession；　that　is；　prescription。　　Labor　is　only　the　sensible　sign；　the　physical　act；　by　which　occupation　is　manifested。　　If；　then；　the　cultivator　remains　proprietor　after　he　has　ceased　to　labor　and　produce；　if　his　possession；　first　conceded；　then　tolerated；　finally　becomes　inalienable；it　happens　by　permission　of　the　civil　law；　and　by　virtue　of　the　principle　of　occupancy。　　So　true　is　this；　that　there　is　not　a　bill　of　sale；　not　a　farm　lease；　not　an　annuity；　but　implies　it。　　I　will　quote　only　one　example。
  How　do　we　measure　the　value　of　land？　　By　its　product。　　If　a　piece　of　land　yields　one　thousand　francs；　we　say　that　at　five　per　cent。　it　is　worth　twenty　thousand　francs；　at　four　per　cent。　twenty…five　thousand　francs；　&c。；　which　means；　in　other　words；　that　in　twenty　or　twenty…five　years'　time　the　purchaser　would　recover　in　full　the　amount　originally　paid　for　the　land。　　If；　then；　after　a　certain　length　of　time；　the　price　of　a　piece　of　land　has　been　wholly　recovered；　why　does　the　purchaser　continue　to　be　proprietor？　　Because　of　the　right　of　occupancy；　in　the　absence　of　which　every　sale　would　be　a　redemption。
  The　theory　of　appropriation　by　labor　is；　then；　a　contradiction　of　the　Code；　and　when　the　partisans　of　this　theory　pretend　to　explain　the　laws　thereby；　they　contradict　themselves。
  〃If　men　succeed　in　fertilizing　land　hitherto　unproductive；　or　even　death…producing；　like　certain　swamps；　they　create　thereby　property　in　all　its　completeness。〃
  What　good　does　it　do　to　magnify　an　expression；　and　play　with　equivocations；　as　if　we　expected　to　change　the　reality　thereby？　　THEY　CREATE　PROPERTY　IN　ALL　ITS　COMPLETENESS。　　You　mean　that　they　create　a　productive　capacity　which　formerly　did　not　exist；　but　this　capacity　cannot　be　created　without　material　to　support　it。　　The　substance　of　the　soil　remains　the　same；　only　its　qualities　and　modifications　are　changed。　　Man　has　created　every　thingevery　thing　save　the　material　itself。　　Now；　I　maintain　that　this　material　he　can　only　possess　and　use；　on　condition　of　permanent　labor；granting；　for　the　time　being；　his　right　of　property　in　things　which　he　has　produced。
  This；　then；　is　the　first　point　settled：　property　in　product；　if　we　grant　so　much；　does　not　carry　with　it　property　in　the　means　of　production；　that　seems　to　me　to　need　no　further　demonstration。　　There　is　no　difference　between　the　soldier　who　possesses　his　arms；　the　mason　who　possesses　the　materials　committed　to　his　care；　the　fisherman　who　possesses　the　water；　the　hunter　who　possesses　the　fields　and　forests；　and　the　cultivator　who　possesses　the　lands：　all；　if　you　say　so；　are　proprietors　of　their　productsnot　one　is　proprietor　of　the　means　of　production。　　The　right　to　product　is　exclusivejus　in　re；　the　right　to　means　is　commonjus　ad　rem。
  ％　5。That　Labor　leads　to　Equality　of　Property。
  Admit；　however；　that　labor　gives　a　right　of　property　in　material。
  Why　is　not　this　principle　universal？　　Why　is　the　benefit　of　this　pretended　law　confined　to　a　few　and　denied　to　the　mass　of　laborers？　　A　philosopher；　arguing　that　all　animals　sprang　up　formerly　out　of　the　earth　warmed　by　the　rays　of　the　sun；　almost　like　mushrooms；　on　being　asked　why　the　earth　no　longer　yielded　crops　of　that　nature；　replied：　　〃Because　it　is　old；　and　has　lost　its　fertility。〃　　Has　labor；　once　so　fecund；　likewise　become　sterile？　　Why　does　the　tenant　no　longer　acquire　through　his　labor　the　land　which　was　formerly　acquired　by　the　labor　of　the　proprietor？
  〃Because；〃　they　say；　〃it　is　already　appropriated。〃　　That　is　no　answer。　　A　farm　yields　fifty　bushels　per　hectare；　the　skill　and　labor　of　the　tenant　double　this　product：　the　increase　is　created　by　the　tenant。　　Suppose　the　owner；　in　a　spirit　of　moderation　rarely　met　with；　does　not　go　to　the　extent　of　absorbing　this　product　by　raising　the　rent；　but　allows　the　cultivator　to　enjoy　the　results　of　his　labor；　even　then　justice　is　not　satisfied。　　The　tenant；　by　improving　the　land；　has　imparted　a　new　value　to　the　property；　he；　therefore；　has　a　right　to　a　part　of　the　property。　　If　the　farm　was　originally　worth　one　hundred　thousand　francs；　and　if　by　the　labor　of　the　tenant　its　value　has　risen　to　one　hundred　and　fifty　thousand　francs；　the　tenant；　who　produced　this　extra　value；　is　the　legitimate　proprietor　of　one…third　of　the　farm。　　M。　Ch。　Comte　could　not　have　pronounced　this　doctrine　false；　for　it　was　he　who　said：
  〃Men　who　increase　the　fertility　of　the　earth　are　no　less　useful　to　their　fellow…men；　than　if　they　should　create　new　land。〃
  Why；　then；　is　not　this　rule　applicable　to　the　man　who　improves　the　land；　as　well　as　to　him　who　clears　it？　　The　labor　of　the　former　makes　the　land　worth　one；　that　of　the　latter　makes　it　worth　two：　both　create　equal　values。　　Why　not　accord　to　both　equal　property？　　I　defy　any　one　to　refute　this　argument；　without　again　falling　back　on　the　right　of　first　occupancy。
  〃But；〃　it　will　be　said；　〃even　if　your　wish　should　be　granted；　property　would　not　be　distributed　much　more　evenly　than　now。　　Land　does　not　go　on　increasing　in　value　for　ever；　after　two　or　three　seasons　it　attains　its　maximum　fertility。　　That　which　is　added　by　the　agricultural　art　results　rather　from　the　progress　of　science　and　the　diffusion　of　knowledge；　than　from　the　skill　of　the　cultivator。　　Consequently；　the　addition　of　a　few　laborers　to　the　mass　of　proprietors　would　be　no　argument　against　property。〃
  This　discussion　would；　indeed；　prove　a　well…nigh　useless　one；　if　our　labors　culminated　in　simply　extending　land…privilege　and　industrial　monopoly；　in　emancipating　only　a　few　hundred　laborers　out　of　the　millions　of　proletaires。　　But　this　also　is　a　misconception　of　our　real　thought；　and　does　but　prove　the　general　lack　of　intelligence　and　logic。
  If　the　laborer；　who　adds　to　the　value　of　a　thing；　has　a　right　of　property　in　it；　he　who　maintains　this　value　acquires　the　same　right。　　For　what　is　maintenance？　　It　is　incessant　addition；　continuous　creation。　　What　is　it　to　cultivate？　　It　is　to　give　the　soil　its　value　every　year；　it　is；　by　annually　renewed　creation；　to　prevent　the　diminution　or　destruction　of　the　value　of　a　piece　of　land。　　Admitting；　then；　that　property　is　rational　and　legitimate；admitting　that　rent　is　equitable　and　just；I　say　that　he　who　cultivates　acquires　property　by　as　good　a　title　as　he　who　clears；　or　he　who　improves；　and　that　every　time　a　tenant　pays　his　rent；　he　obtains　a　fraction　of　property　in　the　land　entrusted　to　his　care；　the　denominator　of　which　is　equal　to　the　proportion　of　rent　paid。　　Unless　you　admit　this；　you　fall　into　absolutism　and　tyranny；　you　recognize　class　privileges；　you　sanction　slavery。
  Whoever　labors　becomes　a　proprietorthis　is　an　inevitable　deduction　from　the　acknowledged　principles　of　political　economy　and　jurisprudence。　　And　when　I　say　pr