renewed annually。 The combined deficits of the years 1838 and 1839 amount to forty… seven million five hundred thousand francs。 In 1840； the excess of expenses over receipts is expected to be twenty…two million five hundred thousand francs。 Attention was called to these figures by Lord Ripon。 Lord Melbourne replied： ‘The noble earl unhappily was right in declaring that the public expenses continually increase； and with him I must say that there is no room for hope that they can be diminished or met in any way。'〃 National： January 26； 1840。
A nation is the tenant of a rich proprietor called the GOVERNMENT； to whom it pays； for the use of the soil； a farm… rent called a tax。 Whenever the government makes war； loses or gains a battle； changes the outfit of its army； erects a monu… ment； digs a canal； opens a road； or builds a railway； it borrows money； on which the tax…payers pay interest； that is； the government； without adding to its productive capacity； increases its active capital；in a word； capitalizes after the manner of the proprietor of whom I have just spoken。
Now； when a governmental loan is once contracted； and the interest is once stipulated； the budget cannot be reduced。 For； to accomplish that； either the capitalists must relinquish their interest； which would involve an abandonment of property； or the government must go into bankruptcy； which would be a fraudulent denial of the political principle； or it must pay the debt； which would require another loan； or it must reduce expenses； which is impossible； since the loan was contracted for the sole reason that the ordinary receipts were insufficient； or the money expended by the government must be reproductive； which requires an increase of productive capacity；a condition excluded by our hypothesis； or； finally； the tax…payers must submit to a new tax in order to pay the debt；an impossible thing。 For； if this new tax were levied upon all citizens alike； half； or even more； of the citizens would be unable to pay it； if the rich had to bear the whole； it would be a forced contribution；an invasion of property。 Long financial experience has shown that the method of loans； though exceedingly dangerous； is much surer； more convenient； and less costly than any other method； consequently the government borrows；that is； goes on capitalizing；and increases the budget。
Then； a budget； instead of ever diminishing； must necessarily and continually increase。 It is astonishing that the economists； with all their learning； have failed to perceive a fact so simple and so evident。 If they have perceived it； why have they neglected to condemn it？
HISTORICAL COMMENT。Much interest is felt at present in a financial operation which is expected to result in a reduction of the budget。 It is proposed to change the present rate of increase； five per cent。 Laying aside the politico…legal question to deal only with the financial question；is it not true that； when five per cent。 is changed to four per cent。； it will then be necessary； for the same reasons； to change four to three； then three to two； then two to one； and finally to sweep away increase altogether？ But that would be the advent of equality of conditions and the abolition of property。 Now it seems to me； that an intelligent nation should voluntarily meet an inevitable revolution half way； instead of suffering itself to be dragged after the car of inflexible necessity。
EIGHTH PROPOSITION。
Property is impossible； because its power of Accumulation is infinite； and is exercised only over finite quantities。
If men； living in equality； should grant to one of their number the exclusive right of property； and this sole proprietor should lend one hundred francs to the human race at compound interest； payable to his descendants twenty…four generations hence；at the end of six hundred years this sum of one hundred francs； at five per cent。； would amount to 107；854；010；777；600 francs； two thousand six hundred and ninety…six and one…third times the capital of France （supposing her capital to be 40；000；000；000）； or more than twenty times the value of the terrestrial globe！
Suppose that a man； in the reign of St。 Louis； had borrowed one hundred francs； and had refused；he and his heirs after him；to return it。 Even though it were known that the said heirs were not the rightful possessors； and that prescription had been interrupted always at the right moment；nevertheless； by our laws； the last heir would be obliged to return the one hundred francs with interest； and interest on the interest； which in all would amount； as we have seen； to nearly one hundred and eight thousand billions。
Every day； fortunes are growing in our midst much more rapidly than this。 The preceding example supposed the interest equal to one…twentieth of the capital；it often equals one…tenth； one… fifth； one…half of the capital； and sometimes the capital itself。
The Fourieristsirreconcilable enemies of equality； whose partisans they regard as SHARKSintend； by quadrupling production； to satisfy all the demands of capital； labor； and skill。 But； should production be multiplied by four； ten； or even one hundred； property would soon absorb； by its power of accumulation and the effects of its capitalization； both products and capital； and the land； and even the laborers。 Is the phalanstery to be prohibited from capitalizing and lending at interest？ Let it explain； then； what it means by property。
I will carry these calculations no farther。 They are capable of infinite variation； upon which it would be puerile for me to insist。 I only ask by what standard judges； called upon to decide a suit for possession； fix the interest？ And； developing the question； I ask；
Did the legislator； in introducing into the Republic the principle of property； weigh all the consequences？ Did he know the law of the possible？ If he knew it； why is it not in the Code？ Why is so much latitude allowed to the proprietor in accumulating property and charging interest；to the judge in recognizing and fixing the domain of property；to the State in its power to levy new taxes continually？ At what point is the nation justified in repudiating the budget； the tenant his farm…rent； and the manufacturer the interest on his capital？ How far may the idler take advantage of the laborer？ Where does the right of spoliation begin； and where does it end？ When may the producer say to the proprietor； 〃I owe you nothing more〃？ When is property satisfied？ When must it cease to steal？
If the legislator did know the law of the possible； and disregarded it； what must be thought of his justice？ If he did not know it； what must be thought of his wisdom？ Either wicked or foolish； how can we recognize his authority？
If our charters and our codes are based upon an absurd hypothesis； what is taught in the law…schools？ What does a judgment of the Court of Appeal amount to？ About what do our Chambers deliberate？ What is POLITICS？ What is our definition of a STATESMAN？ What is the meaning of JURISPRUDENCE？ Should we not rather say JURISIGNORANCE？
If all our institutions are based upon an error in calculation； does it not follow that these institutions are so many shams？ And if the entire social structure is built upon this absolute impossibility of property； is it not true that the government under which we live is a chimera； and our present society a utopia？
NINTH PROPOSITION。
Property is impossible； because it is powerless against Property。
I。 By the third corollary of our axiom； interest tells against the proprietor as well as the stranger。 This economical principle is universally admitted。 Nothing simpler at first blush； yet； nothing more absurd； more contradictory in terms； or more absolutely impossible。
The manufacturer； it is said； pays himself the rent on his house and capital。 HE PAYS HIMSELF； that is； he gets paid by the public who buy his products。 For； suppose the manufacturer； who seems to make this profit on his property； wishes also to make it on his merchandise； can he then pay himself one franc for that which cost him ninety centimes； and make money by the operation？ No： such a transaction would transfer the merchant's money from his right hand to his left； but without any profit whatever。
Now； that which is true of a single individual trading with himself is true also of the whole business world。 Form a chain of ten； fifteen； twenty producers； as many as you wish。 If the producer A makes a profit out of the producer B。 B's loss must； according to economical principles； be made up by C； C's by D； and so on through to Z。
But by whom will Z be paid for the loss caused him by the profit charged by A in the beginning？ BY THE CONSUMER； replies Say。 Contemptible equivocation！ Is this consumer any other； then； than A； B。 C； D； &c。； or Z？ By whom will Z be paid？ If he is paid by A； no one makes a profit； consequently； there is no property。 If； on the contrary； Z bears the burden himself； he ceases to be a member of society； since it refuses him the right of property and profit； which it grants to the other associates。
Since； then； a nation； like universal humanity； is a vast industrial association which cannot act outside of itself； it is clear that no man can enrich himself without impoverishing another。 For； in order that the right of property； the right of increase； may be respected in the case of A； it must be denied to Z； thus we see how equality of rights； separated from equality of conditions； may be a truth。 The iniquity of political economy in this respect is flagrant。 〃When I； a manufacturer； purchase the labor of a workingman； I do not include his wages in the net product of my business； on the contrary； I deduct them。 But the workingman includes them in his net product。 。 。 。 〃（Say： Political Economy。）
That means that all which the workingman gains is NET PRODUCT； but that only that part of the manufacturer's gains is NET PRODUCT； which remains after deducting his wages。 But why is the right of profit confined to the manufacturer？ Why is this right； which is at bottom the right of property itself； denied to the workingman？ In the terms of economical science； the workingman is capital。 Now； all ca