The less common an idiom is, and the more obscure its terms, the more prolific is it as a source of error: a philosopher is sophistical in proportion to his ignorance of any method of neutralizing this imperfection in language.

If the art of correcting the errors of speech by scientific methods is ever discovered, then philosophy will have found its criterion of certainty.
Now, then, the difference between property and possession being well established, and it being settled that the former, for the reasons which I have just given, must necessarily disappear, is it best, for the slight advantage of restoring an etymology, to retain the word PROPERTY?
My opinion is that it would be very unwise to do so, and I will tell why.

I quote from the "Journal du Peuple:"-- "To the legislative power belongs the right to regulate property, to prescribe the conditions of acquiring, possessing, and transmitting it...

It cannot be denied that inheritance, assessment, commerce, industry, labor, and wages require the most important modifications." You wish, proletaires, to REGULATE PROPERTY; that is, you wish to destroy it and reduce it to the right of possession.

For to regulate property without the consent of the proprietors is to deny the right OF DOMAIN; to associate employees with proprietors is to destroy the EMINENT right; to suppress or even reduce farm-rent, house-rent, revenue, and increase generally, is to annihilate PERFECT property.