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