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.