3rd.  The anecdote I have just related enables you to explain this apparently singular phenomenon, which is termed the duration or perpetuity of interest.  Since, in lending his plane, James has been able, very lawfully, to make it a condition that it should be returned to him, at the end of a year, in the same state in which it was when he lent it, is it not evident that he may, at the expiration of the term, lend it again on the same conditions?  If he resolves upon the latter plan, the plane will return to him at the end of every year, and that without end.  James will then be in a condition to lend it without end; that is, he may derive from it a perpetual interest.  It will be said, that the plane will be worn out.  That is true; but it will be worn out by the hand and for the profit of the borrower.  The latter has taken into account this gradual wear, and taken upon himself, as he ought, the consequences.  He has reckoned that he shall derive from this tool an advantage, which will allow him to restore it in its original condition, after having realised a profit from it.  As long as James does not use this capital himself, or for his own advantage—­as long as he renounces the advantages which allow it to be restored to its original condition—­he will have an incontestable right to have it restored, and that independently of interest.

Observe, besides, that if, as I believe I have shown, James, far from doing any harm to William, has done him a service in lending him his plane for a year; for the same reason, he will do no harm to a second, a third, a fourth borrower, in the subsequent periods.  Hence you may understand that the interest of a capital is as natural, as lawful, as useful, in the thousandth year, as in the first.  We may go still further.  It may happen that James lends more than a single plane.  It is possible, that by means of working, of saving, of privations, of order, of activity, he may come to lend a multitude of planes and saws; that is to say, to do a multitude of services.  I insist upon this point,—­that if the first loan has been a social good, it will be the same with all the others; for they are all similar, and based upon the same principle.  It may happen, then, that the amount of all the remunerations received by our honest operative, in exchange for services rendered by him, may suffice to maintain him.  In this case, there will be a man in the world who has a right to live without working.  I do not say that he would be doing right to give himself up to idleness—­but I say, that he has a right to do so; and if he does so, it will be at nobody’s expense, but quite the contrary.  If society at all understands the nature of things, it will acknowledge that this man subsists on services which he receives certainly (as we all do), but which he lawfully receives in exchange for other services, which he himself has rendered, that he continues to render, and which are quite real, inasmuch as they are freely and voluntarily accepted.