A nation, like an individual, is only a possessor and worker of the territory it occupies, not a pro… — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

A nation, like an individual, is only a possessor and worker of the territory it occupies, not a proprietor, so the so‑called national right of property is a fictitious abuse that historically has produced suzerainty, tributes, forced labor, and wars.

By Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, from What Is Property?

Key Arguments

He rejects Comte’s premise that 'France, considered as a nation, has a territory which is her own,' insisting that nations are related like individuals as 'commoners and workers,' not as proprietors.
He denies that 'The right of use and abuse belongs' to nations any more than to men, thus stripping nations of the juridical definition of property (jus utendi et abutendi).
He notes that what is called national property has historically yielded 'pretensions to suzerainty, tributes, monarchical privileges, statute-labor, quotas of men and money, supplies of merchandise, etc.; ending finally in refusals to pay taxes, insurrections, wars, and depopulations,' so the fiction of national property has tangible oppressive consequences.
He characterizes Comte’s starting assumption that the nation is a proprietor as 'begging the question,' meaning the very thing to be proved—property—is simply presupposed at the outset.
He predicts that 'the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of checking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy war,' implying that the abuse flows from the false proprietary conception.

Source Quotes

Ch. Comte says, in his Treatise on Property:⁠— “France, considered as a nation, has a territory which is her own.” France, as an individuality, possesses a territory which she cultivates; it is not her property.

Comte says, in his Treatise on Property:⁠— “France, considered as a nation, has a territory which is her own.” France, as an individuality, possesses a territory which she cultivates; it is not her property. Nations are related to each other as individuals are: they are commoners and workers; it is an abuse of language to call them proprietors. The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations than to men; and the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of checking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy war.

Nations are related to each other as individuals are: they are commoners and workers; it is an abuse of language to call them proprietors. The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations than to men; and the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of checking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy war. Thus, M.

Ch. Comte⁠—who undertakes to explain how property comes into existence, and who starts with the supposition that a nation is a proprietor⁠—falls into that error known as begging the question; a mistake which vitiates his whole argument. If the reader thinks it is pushing logic too far to question a nation’s right of property in the territory which it possesses, I will simply remind him of the fact that at all ages the results of the fictitious right of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty, tributes, monarchical privileges, statute-labor, quotas of men and money, supplies of merchandise, etc.; ending finally in refusals to pay taxes, insurrections, wars, and depopulations.

Comte⁠—who undertakes to explain how property comes into existence, and who starts with the supposition that a nation is a proprietor⁠—falls into that error known as begging the question; a mistake which vitiates his whole argument. If the reader thinks it is pushing logic too far to question a nation’s right of property in the territory which it possesses, I will simply remind him of the fact that at all ages the results of the fictitious right of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty, tributes, monarchical privileges, statute-labor, quotas of men and money, supplies of merchandise, etc.; ending finally in refusals to pay taxes, insurrections, wars, and depopulations. “Scattered through this territory are extended tracts of land, which have not been converted into individual property.

Key Concepts

“France, considered as a nation, has a territory which is her own.”
France, as an individuality, possesses a territory which she cultivates; it is not her property. Nations are related to each other as individuals are: they are commoners and workers; it is an abuse of language to call them proprietors.
The right of use and abuse belongs no more to nations than to men; and the time will come when a war waged for the purpose of checking a nation in its abuse of the soil will be regarded as a holy war.
falls into that error known as begging the question; a mistake which vitiates his whole argument.
at all ages the results of the fictitious right of national property have been pretensions to suzerainty, tributes, monarchical privileges, statute-labor, quotas of men and money, supplies of merchandise, etc.; ending finally in refusals to pay taxes, insurrections, wars, and depopulations.

Context

Beginning of § 4, where Proudhon opens his critique of Comte’s theory of property by attacking the foundational assumption of 'national property' and recounting its historical effects.