“It is evident, then, and results clearly and necessarily from the fundamental principle of the Right of Property, which I have just explained, that each individual of the second generation has an equal right to the ‹primitive or natural capital›, whilst he has no right to the other species of ‹capital› which has been ‹created› by the labour of the first generation. Each individual of the first generation may, then, dispose of his share of this ‹created capital› in favour of whatever individual of the second generation he may please to select, children, friends, etc., and no one, not even the State itself, as we have just seen, has the slightest right (on pretence of Property) to control the disposal which, as donor or testator, he may have made of such capital. “Observe that on this hypothesis the man of the second generation is already in a better situation than the man of the first, seeing that, besides his right to the ‹primitive capital›, which is preserved to him, he has his chance of receiving a portion of the ‹created capital›, that is to say, of a value which he has not produced, and which represents anterior labour. “If, then, we suppose things to be arranged in society in such a way that, “1st, The right to the ‹primitive capital›, that is, the usufruct of the soil in its natural state, is preserved, or that an «EQUIVALENT RIGHT» is conferred on every individual born within the territory; “2d, That the ‹created capital› is continually distributed among men, ‹as it is produced›, in proportion to the co-operation of each in the production of that capital; “If, we say, the mechanism of the social organization shall satisfy these two conditions, «PROPERTY», under such a régime, would be established «IN ITS ABSOLUTE LEGITIMACY», and ‹Fact› would be in unison with ‹Right›.”—(‹Théorie du droit de propriété et du droit au travail›, 3^e edition, p. 17.) We see here that the socialist author distinguishes between two kinds of value, ‹created value›, which is the subject of legitimate property, and ‹uncreated value›, which he denominates the ‹value of land in its natural state›, ‹primitive capital›, ‹natural capital›, which cannot become individual property but by usurpation. Now, according to the theory which I am anxious to establish, the ideas expressed by the words ‹uncreated›, ‹primitive›, ‹natural›, exclude radically these other ideas, ‹value›, ‹capital›. This is the error in M. Considérant’s premises, by which he is landed in this melancholy conclusion: