What argument can Ricardo, MacCulloch, and Mill develop therefrom in favor of property?
Their theory turns against themselves, and strangles them.
Malthus thinks that farm-rent has its source in the power possessed by land of producing more than is necessary to supply the wants of the men who cultivate it.

I would ask Malthus why successful labor should entitle the idle to a portion of the products?
But the worthy Malthus is mistaken in regard to the fact.

Yes; land has the power of producing more than is needed by those who cultivate it, if by CULTIVATORS is meant tenants only.

The tailor also makes more clothes than he wears, and the cabinet-maker more furniture than he uses.

But, since the various professions imply and sustain one another, not only the farmer, but the followers of all arts and trades--even to the doctor and the school-teacher--are, and ought to be, regarded as CULTIVATORS OF THE LAND.