Why not accord to both equal property?
I defy any one to refute this argument, without again falling back on the right of first occupancy.
"But," it will be said, "even if your wish should be granted, property would not be distributed much more evenly than now.

Land does not go on increasing in value for ever; after two or three seasons it attains its maximum fertility.

That which is added by the agricultural art results rather from the progress of science and the diffusion of knowledge, than from the skill of the cultivator.

Consequently, the addition of a few laborers to the mass of proprietors would be no argument against property." This discussion would, indeed, prove a well-nigh useless one, if our labors culminated in simply extending land-privilege and industrial monopoly; in emancipating only a few hundred laborers out of the millions of proletaires.

But this also is a misconception of our real thought, and does but prove the general lack of intelligence and logic.
If the laborer, who adds to the value of a thing, has a right of property in it, he who maintains this value acquires the same right.
For what is maintenance?
It is incessant addition,--continuous creation.
What is it to cultivate?
It is to give the soil its value every year; it is, by annually renewed creation, to prevent the diminution or destruction of the value of a piece of land.