[161] Pfau pp. 227-31, Adler p. 372, Zenker pp. 26, 41, fail to see this, being influenced by the improper sense in which Proudhon uses the word "property" for a contractually guaranteed share of goods. [Eltzbacher's statement, on the other hand, is not so much drawn from Proudhon himself as deduced from a comparison of Eltzbacher's definition of property with the statement that Proudhon admits no law but the law of contract. I do not think this last statement is correct; I think Proudhon would have his voluntary contractual associations protect their members in certain definable respects—among others, in the possession of goods—against those who stood outside the contract as well as against those within. Then this would be, by Eltzbacher's definitions, both law and property.]
[162] Pr. "Contradictions" 2. 303-4 [2. 237-8].
[163] Pr. "Propriété" pp. 285-90 [205-9].
[164] Pr. "Propriété" p. 293 [211].
[165] Ib. pp. 1-2 [13].
[166] Ib. p. 283 [204].
[167] Ib. p. 311 [223].
[168] Ib. p. 311 [223].
[169] Ib. p. 311 [223].
[170] Ib. pp. XVIII-XIX [10; consult the passage].