We might apply to it these words of Scripture: "_Celui qui met en lui sa confiance, perira_." Consequently, the best philosophers long since condemned it; so that now none but the enemies of reason wish to make the syllogism its weapon.
M.Considerant, then, has built his theory of property upon a syllogism.
Would he be disposed to stake the system of Fourier upon his arguments, as I am ready to risk the whole doctrine of equality upon my refutation of that system?
Such a duel would be quite in keeping with the warlike and chivalric tastes of M.Considerant, and the public would profit by it; for, one of the two adversaries falling, no more would be said about him, and there would be one grumbler less in the world.
The theory of M.Considerant has this remarkable feature, that, in attempting to satisfy at the same time the claims of both laborers and proprietors, it infringes alike upon the rights of the former and the privileges of the latter.

In the first place, the author lays it down as a principle: "1.

That the use of the land belongs to each member of the race; that it is a natural and imprescriptible right, similar in all respects to the right to the air and the sunshine.2.That the right to labor is equally fundamental, natural, and imprescriptible." I have shown that the recognition of this double right would be the death of property.

I denounce M.Considerant to the proprietors! But M.Considerant maintains that the right to labor creates the right of property, and this is the way he reasons:-- Major Premise.--"Every man legitimately possesses the thing which his labor, his skill,--or, in more general terms, his action,--has created." To which M.Considerant adds, by way of comment: "Indeed, the land not having been created by man, it follows from the fundamental principle of property, that the land, being given to the race in common, can in no wise be the exclusive and legitimate property of such and such individuals, who were not the creators of this value." If I am not mistaken, there is no one to whom this proposition, at first sight and in its entirety, does not seem utterly irrefutable.

Reader, distrust the syllogism.
First, I observe that the words LEGITIMATELY POSSESSES signify to the author's mind is _LEGITIMATE PROPRIETOR;_ otherwise the argument, being intended to prove the legitimacy of property, would have no meaning.