The more Say tries to explain Property on this hypothesis, the more he exposes himself to attack. He sets out by justly comparing nature to a laboratory, in which various chemical operations take place, the result of which is useful to man. “The soil, then,” he adds, “is the ‹producer of utility›, and when «IT» (the soil) receives payment in the form of a profit or a rent ‹to its proprietor›, it is not without giving something to the consumer in exchange for what he pays «IT» (the soil). «It» (still the soil) gives him the utility it has produced, and it is in producing this utility that ‹the earth is productive as well as labour›.” This assertion is unmistakable. Here we have two pretenders, who present themselves to share the remuneration due by the consumer of corn—namely, the earth and labour. They urge the same title, for the soil, M. Say affirms, is productive as well as labour. Labour asks to be remunerated for a ‹service›; the soil demands to be remunerated for a ‹utility›, and this remuneration it demands not for itself (for in what form should we give it?) but for ‹its proprietor›. Whereupon Proudhon summons the proprietor, who represents himself as having the powers of the soil at his disposal, to exhibit his title. You wish me to pay; in other words, to render a service, in order that I may receive the ‹utility› produced by natural agents, independently of the assistance of man, already paid for separately. But, I ask again, Who is to profit by my service? Is it the producer of utility,—that is to say, the soil? That is absurd—the fear of any demand from that quarter need give no great uneasiness. [p164] Is it man? but by what title does he demand it? If for having rendered me a service, well and good. In that case, we are at one. It is the human service which ‹has value›, not the natural service; and that is just the conclusion to which I desire to bring you. That, however, is contrary to your hypothesis. You say that all the human services are remunerated with fourteen francs, and that the two francs which make up the price of the corn correspond to the value created by nature. In that case, I repeat my question—By what title does any one present himself to receive them? Is it not, unfortunately, too clear that if you give specially the name of ‹proprietor› to the man who claims right to these two francs, you justify the too famous saying that ‹Property is theft›? And don’t imagine that this confusion between utility and value shakes only the foundation of landed property. After having led you to contest the ‹rent of land›, it leads you to contest also the ‹interest of capital›.