place, how did the capitalist government come into possession of this "force" and in the second place how has this force been transformed into profits, and in the third place where does it get these profits? (The remainder of this section is merely further elaboration of this idea with more caustic satire at the expense of the antagonist of Engels.) _IX. Natural Economic Laws--Ground Rent._ (In this chapter Engels proceeds to examine what Herr Duehring called the "fundamental laws" of his theory of economic science.) LAW NO. I. "The productivity of economic instruments, natural resources and human force are capable of being increased by invention and discovery." We are amazed. Herr Duehring treats us like that joke of Moliere on the parvenu who was informed that he had talked prose all his life without being aware of it. That inventions and discoveries increase the productive force of labor in many cases (but in many cases not, as the patent records everywhere show) we have been for a long time aware. LAW NO. II. "Division of Labor. The formation of branches of work and the splitting up of activities increases the productivity of labor." As far as this is true it is a mere commonplace since the time of Adam Smith. How far it is true will appear in the third division of this work. LAW NO. III. "Distance and transportation are the most important causes of the advance or hindrance of the organization of productive forces." LAW NO. IV. "The industrial state has incomparably greater capacity for population than the agricultural state." LAW NO. V. "In economics only material interests count." These are the natural laws on which Herr Duehring founds his new economics. He remains true to his philosophic methods. (Hereupon Engels proceeds to the discussion of Duehring's opinions on ground-rent.) Herr Duehring defines ground-rent as "that income which the landowner as such derives from ground and land." The economic idea of ground-rent, which Herr Duehring undertakes to explain to us, is transformed right away into the juristic concept so that we are no further than at first. He compares the leasing of a piece of land with the loan of capital to an entrepreneur but finds, as is so often the case, that the comparison will not hold. Then he says "to pursue the analogy the profit which remains to the lessee after the payment of ground-rent, answers to that portion of the profit on capital which remains to the entrepreneur who operates with borrowed capital after the interest on the borrowed capital has been paid." (To these arguments Engels replies:)