The Communists and ‹Egalitaires› say that ‹property› (in general) ‹is a monopoly›, and must be destroyed. For myself, I say most emphatically that «PROPERTY IS NOT A MONOPOLY». Your premises are false, and your three conclusions, although they differ, are false also. «Property is not a monopoly», and consequently it is not incumbent on us either to tolerate it by way of favour, or to demand compensation for it, or to destroy it. Let us pass briefly in review the opinions of writers of various schools on this important subject. The English Economists lay down this principle, upon which they appear to be unanimous, that ‹value comes from labour›. Were they consistent in their use of terms, it might be so; but are they consistent? The reader will judge. He will see whether they [p252] do not always and everywhere confound gratuitous Utility, which is incapable of remuneration, and destitute of Value, with onerous Utility, which we owe exclusively to labour, and which according to them is alone possessed of value. «Adam Smith.»—“In agriculture nature labours along with man; and ‹although her labour costs no expense›, its produce ‹has its value›, as well as that of the most expensive workmen.”[55] Here we have nature producing value. The purchaser of corn must pay for it, although it has cost nothing to anybody, not even labour. Who then dares come forward to demand this pretended ‹value›? Substitute for that word the word ‹utility›, and all becomes clear, Property is vindicated, and justice satisfied. “This rent,” proceeds Smith, “may be considered as the produce of those ‹powers of nature›, the use of which the landlord lends to the farmer. . . . . It (rent!) is the ‹work of nature›, which remains after deducting or compensating ‹everything which can be regarded as the work of man›. It is seldom less than a fourth, and frequently more than a third of the whole produce. No equal quantity of productive labour employed in manufactures can ever occasion so great a reproduction. In them nature does nothing; man does all.”[56] Is it possible in as few words to include a greater number of dangerous errors? At this rate a fourth or a third part of the ‹value› of human subsistence is due ‹exclusively› to the power of nature. And yet the proprietor is paid by the farmer, and the farmer by the corn-consumer, for this pretended value which remains after ‹the work of man› has been remunerated. And this is the basis on which it is desired to place Property! And, then, what becomes of the axiom that ‹all value comes from labour›? Next, we have nature doing nothing in Manufactures! Do gravitation, the elasticity of the air, and animal force, not aid the manufacturer? These forces act in our manufactures just as they act in our fields; they produce gratuitously, not value, but utility. Were it otherwise, property in capital would be as much exposed to the attacks of Communism as property in land.