the farm…rent would be but 0。1； no matter how great the extent and value of the land appropriated。 Therefore； WITH A GIVEN LANDED CAPITAL； PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TO LABOR； NOT TO PROPERTY。
Guided by this principle； let us try to ascertain the maximum increase of all property whatever。
What is； essentially； a farm…lease？ It is a contract by which the proprietor yields to a tenant possession of his land； in consideration of a portion of that which it yields him； the proprietor。 If； in consequence of an increase in his household； the tenant becomes ten times as strong as the proprietor； he will produce ten times as much。 Would the proprietor in such a case be justified in raising the farm…rent tenfold？ His right is not； The more you produce； the more I demand。 It is； The more I sacrifice； the more I demand。 The increase in the tenant's household； the number of hands at his disposal； the resources of his industry；all these serve to increase production； but bear no relation to the proprietor。 His claims are to be measured by his own productive capacity； not that of others。 Property is the right of increase； not a poll…tax。 How could a man； hardly capable of cultivating even a few acres by himself； demand of a community； on the ground of its use of ten thousand acres of his property； ten thousand times as much as he is incapable of producing from one acre？ Why should the price of a loan be governed by the skill and strength of the borrower； rather than by the utility sacrificed by the proprietor？ We must recognize； then； this second economical law： INCREASE IS MEASURED BY A FRACTION OF THE PROPRIETORS PRODUCTION。
Now； this production； what is it？ In other words； What can the lord and master of a piece of land justly claim to have sacrificed in lending it to a tenant？
The productive capacity of a proprietor； like that of any laborer； being one； the product which he sacrifices in surrendering his land is also one。 If； then； the rate of increase is ten per cent。； the maximum increase is 0。1。
But we have seen that； whenever a proprietor withdraws from production； the amount of products is lessened by 1。 Then the increase which accrues to him； being equal to 0。1 while he remains among the laborers； will be equal after his withdrawal； by the law of the decrease of farm…rent； to 0。09。 Thus we are led to this final formula： THE MAXIMUM INCOME OF A PROPRIETOR IS EQUAL TO THE SQUARE ROOT OF THE PRODUCT OF ONE LABORER （some number being agreed upon to express this product）。 THE DIMINUTION WHICH THIS INCOME SUFFERS； IF THE PROPRIETOR IS IDLE； IS EQUAL TO A FRACTION WHOSE NUMERATOR IS 1； AND WHOSE DENOMINATOR IS THE NUMBER WHICH EXPRESSES THE PRODUCT。
Thus the maximum income of an idle proprietor； or of one who labors in his own behalf outside of the community； figured at ten per cent。 on an average production of one thousand francs per laborer； would be ninety francs。 If； then； there are in France one million proprietors with an income of one thousand francs each； which they consume unproductively； instead of the one thousand millions which are paid them annually； they are entitled in strict justice； and by the most accurate calculation； to ninety millions only。
It is something of a reduction； to take nine hundred and ten millions from the burdens which weigh so heavily upon the laboring class！ Nevertheless； the account is not finished； and the laborer is still ignorant of the full extent of his rights。
What is the right of increase when confined within just limits？ A recognition of the right of occupancy。 But since all have an equal right of occupancy； every man is by the same title a proprietor。 Every man has a right to an income equal to a fraction of his product。 If； then； the laborer is obliged by the right of property to pay a rent to the proprietor； the proprietor is obliged by the same right to pay the same amount of rent to the laborer； and； since their rights balance each other； the difference between them is zero。
_Scholium_。If farm…rent is only a fraction of the supposed product of the proprietor； whatever the amount and value of the property； the same is true in the case of a large number of small and distinct proprietors。 For； although one man may use the property of each separately； he cannot use the property of all at the same time。
To sum up。 The right of increase； which can exist only within very narrow limits； defined by the laws of production； is annihilated by the right of occupancy。 Now； without the right of increase； there is no property。 Then property is impossible。
FOURTH PROPOSITION。
Property is impossible； because it is Homicide。
If the right of increase could be subjected to the laws of reason and justice； it would be reduced to an indemnity or reward whose MAXIMUM never could exceed； for a single laborer； a certain fraction of that which he is capable of producing。 This we have just shown。 But why should the right of increaselet us not fear to call it by its right name； the right of robberybe governed by reason； with which it has nothing in common？ The proprietor is not content with the increase allotted him by good sense and the nature of things： he demands ten times； a hundred times； a thousand times； a million times as much。 By his own labor； his property would yield him a product equal only to one； and he demands of society； no longer a right proportional to his productive capacity； but a per capita tax。 He taxes his fellows in proportion to their strength； their number； and their industry。 A son is born to a farmer。 〃Good！〃 says the proprietor； 〃one more chance for increase！〃 By what process has farm…rent been thus changed into a poll…tax？ Why have our jurists and our theologians failed； with all their shrewdness； to check the extension of the right of increase？
The proprietor； having estimated from his own productive capacity the number of laborers which his property will accommodate； divides it into as many portions； and says： 〃Each one shall yield me revenue。〃 To increase his income； he has only to divide his property。 Instead of reckoning the interest due him on his labor； he reckons it on his capital； and； by this substitution； the same property； which in the hands of its owner is capable of yielding only one； is worth to him ten； a hundred； a thousand； a million。 Consequently； he has only to hold himself in readiness to register the names of the laborers who apply to himhis task consists in drafting leases and receipts。
Not satisfied with the lightness of his duties； the proprietor does not intend to bear even the deficit resulting from his idleness； he throws it upon the shoulders of the producer； of whom he always demands the same reward。 When the farm…rent of a piece of land is once raised to its highest point； the proprietor never lowers it； high prices； the scarcity of labor； the disadvantages of the season； even pestilence itself； have no effect upon himwhy should he suffer from hard times when he does not labor？
Here commences a new series of phenomena。
Saywho reasons with marvellous clearness whenever he assails taxation； but who is blind to the fact that the proprietor； as well as the tax…gatherer； steals from the tenant； and in the same mannersays in his second letter to Malthus：
〃If the collector of taxes and those who employ him consume one… sixth of the products； they thereby compel the producers to feed； clothe； and support themselves on five…sixths of what they produce。 They admit this； but say at the same time that it is possible for each one to live on five…sixths of what he produces。
I admit that； if they insist upon it； but I ask if they believe that the producer would live as well； in case they demanded of him； instead of one…sixth； two…sixths； or one…third； of their products？ No； but he would still live。 Then I ask whether he would still live； in case they should rob him of two… thirds； 。 。 。 then three…quarters？ But I hear no reply。〃
If the master of the French economists had been less blinded by his proprietary prejudices； he would have seen that farm…rent has precisely the same effect。
Take a family of peasants composed of six persons；father； mother； and four children；living in the country； and cultivating a small piece of ground。 Let us suppose that by hard labor they manage； as the saying is； to make both ends meet； that； having lodged； warmed； clothed； and fed themselves； they are clear of debt； but have laid up nothing。 Taking the years together； they contrive to live。 If the year is prosperous； the father drinks a little more wine； the daughters buy themselves a dress； the sons a hat； they eat a little cheese； and； occasionally； some meat。 I say that these people are on the road to wreck and ruin。
For； by the third corollary of our axiom； they owe to themselves the interest on their own capital。 Estimating this capital at only eight thousand francs at two and a half per cent。； there is an annual interest of two hundred francs to be paid。 If； then； these two hundred francs； instead of being subtracted from the gross product to be saved and capitalized； are consumed； there is an annual deficit of two hundred francs in the family assets； so that at the end of forty years these good people； without suspecting it； will have eaten up their property and become bankrupt！
This result seems ridiculousit is a sad reality。
The conscription comes。 What is the conscription？ An act of property exercised over families by the government without warninga robbery of men and money。 The peasants do not like to part with their sons；in that I do not think them wrong。 It is hard for a young man of twenty to gain any thing by life in the barracks； unless he is depraved； he detests it。 You can generally judge of a soldier's morality by his hatred of his uniform。 Unfortunate wretches or worthless scamps；such is the make…up of the French army。 This ought not to be the case；but so it is。 Question a hundred thousand men； and not one will contradict my assertion。
Our peasant； in redeeming his two conscripted sons； expends four thousand francs； which he borrows for that purpose； the interest on this； at five per cent。； is two hundred francs；a sum equal to that referred to a