Contradictions will result from it.
"A piece of land of a certain size produces food enough to supply a man for one day.

If the possessor, through his labor, discovers some method of making it produce enough for two days, he doubles its value.

This new value is his work, his creation: it is taken from nobody; it is his property." I maintain that the possessor is paid for his trouble and industry in his doubled crop, but that he acquires no right to the land.

"Let the laborer have the fruits of his labor." Very good; but I do not understand that property in products carries with it property in raw material.

Does the skill of the fisherman, who on the same coast can catch more fish than his fellows, make him proprietor of the fishing-grounds?
Can the expertness of a hunter ever be regarded as a property-title to a game-forest?
The analogy is perfect,--the industrious cultivator finds the reward of his industry in the abundancy and superiority of his crop.